X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org BFD4C385483E
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=SystematicSw.ab.ca
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=none smtp.mailfrom=brian DOT inglis AT systematicsw DOT ab DOT ca
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=INe8tijG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5ff49c9d
 a=kiZT5GMN3KAWqtYcXc+/4Q==:117 a=kiZT5GMN3KAWqtYcXc+/4Q==:17
 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=w_pzkKWiAAAA:8 a=uYT-Tk0qkVT609LjNaIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
 a=tMPTF2wDCtEA:10 a=sRI3_1zDfAgwuvI8zelB:22
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <48b833bd-547a-92eb-542e-b7da8e0d601b AT interocitors DOT com>
 <9d339f8b-83ff-8b9c-b2fe-1c6fa4b2a92d AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
 <6fade6a2-af9d-243a-9719-7177ad76fbf7 AT interocitors DOT com>
From: Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
Organization: Systematic Software
Subject: Re: Is it possible to define the root directory in a cross compiled
 program
Message-ID: <8ffbaeaf-f3e9-841a-3e85-6fcef3a3d683@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 10:06:35 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6fade6a2-af9d-243a-9719-7177ad76fbf7@interocitors.com>
Content-Language: en-CA
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfBu7C6rALTL0OFw/3yZurvCQjw8/9rLD2lZ+akcLwhvX7H8BXwUbFTHQqzFMkE5zbIw0qbxLzTuMeXP7QAJNXlC5eyKYt/Hwl1Nu16hyXMUDZ++isyrV
 hZRGpK/7KAIvFk5glar1uIrfp5bAXrDcBN1O5Vwu3v/ByX4Etc1Y4qpwbaNYSRbnuuTZroZ5uYj+mNPhZV9Sy61FQ4N27wPcm7BuojSrjW1okOHdxpbyqxzD
 jS993BFUfZOm8KOJRqjo3g==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Cc: Roger Kaufman <rogerkaufman AT interocitors DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 105H767w027793

On 2021-01-05 09:49, Roger Kaufman wrote:
>> On 1/5/2021 10:02 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:34 AM Eliot Moss wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is there a Windows equivalent to chroot (either the program or the 
>> library/system call)?
>> >
>> > See: https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/highlights.html
>> >
>> > Quoting:
>> >
>> > "Chroot is supported. Kind of. Chroot is not a concept known by
>> > Windows. This implies some serious restrictions. First of all, the
>> > chroot call isn't a privileged call. Any user may call it. Second, the
>> > chroot environment isn't safe against native windows processes. Given
>> > that, chroot in Cygwin is only a hack which pretends security where
>> > there is none. For that reason the usage of chroot is discouraged.
>> > Don't use it unless you really, really know what you're doing."
>> >
>> > What I have found is that the cygwin chroot is not a security boundary
>>
>> Right.  My impression was that the OP was more interested in having the
>> functionality of where / is, though I could be wrong, of course.
>>
>> I also saw web posts about Windows' RUNAS command, which deals with some of
>> the security implications, but does not re-root your file hierarchy.

> This is the OP. We can close this out. Brian Inglis mentioned the Windows 
> /dev/null is "nul" and so that solved the problem in this case. In the code
> below, both fopen's succeed when compiled with gcc and the "nul" fopen
> succeeds when cross compiled with x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++
> 
> The backstory is, I cross compile because I have code only compatible when
> cross compiled. However, I run the code in the bash shell. Now in the bash
> shell, I can't change directory higher than / which is expected (I know of
> cygdrive/c of course)
> 
> However since it is now technically a windows  program it can "see out" into
> the file system. I have for that program, an environment variable path I also
> have to prefix e.g. /cygwin64/home... its just something I have to live with.
> But it does make portability imperfect as the same code compiles in Linux. >
> #include <cstdio>

You can adapt at runtime to the OS, check which device and root path exists 
(good programming practices anyway) as a default, and override if env var exists 
and includes a valid path which is also safe, or conditionally compile to 
hardwire included or excluded behaviour, with the same portable source: SMOP.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]
--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple