Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Why use pwd(1) for getpwd(3C)? (Re: Why use find?)
Message-ID: <9751:Oct1211:52:0790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 90 11:52:07 GMT
References: <1990Oct9.122813.1329@cbnews.att.com> <23012:Oct1019:12:2790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Oct11.191936.10947@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 20

In article <1990Oct11.191936.10947@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> chet@po.CWRU.Edu writes:
> In article <23012:Oct1019:12:2790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >In article <1990Oct9.122813.1329@cbnews.att.com> jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) writes:
> >  [ why is getpwd() implemented as `pwd` in System V? ]
> >Because there's no getwd() system call to have the kernel do the job.
> BSD doesn't have one either; it's a library routine, at least through
> 4.3-tahoe.

I was explaining the logic of having a setuid program. *If* you decide
that pwd should work despite permissions, and *if* you don't have a
getwd() system call to do the job, then you have to use a separate
setuid program.

It's also proper to call anything in the POSIX book a system call.

> By the way, the name of the Posix (and S5) routine is getcwd().

In the article you're responding to, I complained about this. RTFABYFU.

---Dan