Wandering Thoughts archives


The reason Unix has the argv[0] issue (and API)

Famously, Unix passes arguments to programs in the argv[] array, and the first entry in the array is the 'name' of the program being run (the 0th element, since C arrays index starting from 0, hence 'argv[0]'). Recently, a whole bunch of people have found out that argv[0] doesn't even have to be there due to CVE-2021-4034. One thing you could reasonably ask in the wake of this security issue is why this is even the case. Why doesn't Unix force argv[0] to always have a value? Does Unix have some deep reason why this API is the way it is?

The unsatisfying answer is that the argv[0] API exists because it's easy (well, almost certainly), like a great many things in Unix. It's not necessarily a good idea, but once you decide that on the one hand the shell (and other programs that run other programs) should pass the argument array to the kernel and on the other hand a program should be able to get at its name (or at least the name it's being run under), putting the program name as argv[0] and making the program invoking exec() supply it is the simple approach. The kernel simply copies a few C arrays of strings into the new program's memory space. It doesn't have to compose together some kernel information (the program being run) and some user level information (the argument list and the environment), or provide an additional API to provide the program's name.

(And then once you could manipulate the name that programs were run under, people took advantage of this as an API. For example, the traditional way that a Unix shell knew it was being run as a login shell and so should source your .profile was that its argv[0] started with a '-' (a dash). All of this was a user level convention that the kernel didn't have to get involved in; it was purely between login and the shell.)

Research Unix was a small and simple system, which often took the easy approach both in implementation and (often) in APIs. Many of the APIs are there not necessarily because they are great but because they were simple and easy, and some of them have wound up with problems over time (one example is errno, which is now quite complicated behind the scenes). So while there are certainly good things you can say about the Unix argv API, those good things are probably not the reason it exists in this form. The most likely reason it exists is that it's a simple, easy way to get that combination of features with little effort and kernel code.

(The kernel API is not really the API that C programs see, either, but the core elements are more or less the same.)

This is not to say that we should keep the full details of the argv API today. My personal view is that argv[0] should always exist. Because the whole argv API is partially implemented at user level in early program startup, this wouldn't actually take any kernel changes. On a modern Unix system, you could make the dynamic loader look for argc being 0 and pass main() a tiny little one-element argv with an empty string as the program name.

(This wouldn't necessarily protect programs written in languages with their own runtimes, like Go, but you can only do so much the easy way.)

PS: The use of argv[0] for the name of the program goes back at least as far as V3's exec(2). I don't think we have manpages for V2 and V1 (if we do, they're not on www.tuhs.org), and I'm not energetic enough to dig through their shell source code (if we have that).

unix/Argv0IsEasy written at 21:14:25; Add Comment

Page tools: See As Normal.
Login: Password:
Atom Syndication: Recent Pages, Recent Comments.

This dinky wiki is brought to you by the Insane Hackers Guild, Python sub-branch.