undefined | Better HN

0 pointstheamk1y ago0 comments

I would not say it in such absolute way - /proc/self/exe has downsides as well. As this resolves all symlinks, so this breaks all the things that depend on argv[0], like nice help messages, python's virtualenv, name-based dispatch, and seeing if the program which was executed via symlink or not.

A lot of times you know you never called chdir(), in which case I'd actually recommend executing argv[0], as this is nicest thing for admins. If you are really worried, you can use /proc/self/exe for progname and pass argv[0] as-is, but that's overkill a lot of times.

0 comments

duped1y ago

Those are all cases where you're using argv[0] as an argument to the program where it's appropriate. Using it as the path to spawn a child process is incorrect. You're free to re-use it as an argument.

I have fixed enough software that made this mistake that I'm confident to be absolute about it. It's a very easy mistake to make but it's really annoying when software makes it and someone needs to deal with it at a higher level. It's better for developers to know that argv[0] isn't the path to the executable it's what was used to invoke the executable.

vlovich1231y ago

What’s the issue with using argv[0] as a way to spawn yourself? I don’t recall running into a lot of issues.

duped1y ago

If it's a relative path, then changing the working directory will break (chdir("/") is a very common tactic at the top of main()).

It's possible/desirable for the parent to change the PATH of a child process, particularly one that spawns other processes. So the argv[0] used to spawn the original process may be garbage for spawning children.

Similarly in any kind of chroot jail (which may or may not be docker these days), relative paths and PATH can be garbage even if they don't change.

The real problem is that I've seen in-house and open source frameworks/libraries that have a function like `get_executable_path` that reads `argv[0]` and this is just incorrect behavior. Spawning yourself is one of the less risky things you can do, but there are gotchas and a way to avoid them!

vlovich1231y ago

Hmm... I generally have so many issues with chdir (e.g. someone gives you a relative path to a file you need to read and now that's screwed up because you did a previous chdir) that I just avoid all use of it in the first place.

Generally don't run into chroot all that often these days & docker gives you a fully virtualized environment where if a relative path is garbage then you may have other problems too (e.g. given relative paths to files). You certainly have to be careful around chroot / docker anyway as I think resolving /proc/self/exe probably is dangerous too for all the same reasons and you need to be careful to use the literal "/proc/self/exe" string for the spawn command and also require that /proc is mounted and remember to pass through argv[0] unmolested (or mutating as needed depending on use-case).

There's enough corner cases that I'd hesitate given blanket advice as it requires knowing your actual execution environment to a degree that there's lots of valid choices that aren't outright "wrong". And some software may be portable where argv[0] is a fine choice that works 90% of the time without worrying about maintaining a better solution on Linux.

1 more reply

theamkOP1y ago

yesh, that's why my post literally said, "A lot of times you know you never called chdir()..."

Sure, don't put this in the library, but there is nothing wrong with using it in the app where you know no one makes this call.

mbrumlow1y ago

I think you forget the exec system call’s first argument is a path to an executable, followed by an array of arguments, where arg[0] lives.

I can’t find issue with exec(“/proc/self/exe”, [ program , … ).

alerighi1y ago

Well, it could be for example that /proc is not mounted. A lot of software breaks for this, while really there is no need for it to be so. Also that approach only works on Linux, if you want to write a portable software what you do?

mbrumlow1y ago

I am mainly pointing out that arg[0] is still valid. Writing portable software is an entirely different topic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

duped1y ago

vlovich1231y ago

What’s the issue with using argv[0] as a way to spawn yourself? I don’t recall running into a lot of issues.

duped1y ago

If it's a relative path, then changing the working directory will break (chdir("/") is a very common tactic at the top of main()).

Similarly in any kind of chroot jail (which may or may not be docker these days), relative paths and PATH can be garbage even if they don't change.

vlovich1231y ago

1 more reply

theamkOP1y ago

yesh, that's why my post literally said, "A lot of times you know you never called chdir()..."

Sure, don't put this in the library, but there is nothing wrong with using it in the app where you know no one makes this call.

mbrumlow1y ago

I think you forget the exec system call’s first argument is a path to an executable, followed by an array of arguments, where arg[0] lives.

I can’t find issue with exec(“/proc/self/exe”, [ program , … ).

alerighi1y ago

mbrumlow1y ago

I am mainly pointing out that arg[0] is still valid. Writing portable software is an entirely different topic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse