On 2014-09-27, at 00:11 , Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote: > On 26Sep2014 13:16, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:10:53 -0700 >> Hasan Diwan <hasan.di...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 26 September 2014 00:28, Matěj Cepl <mc...@cepl.eu> wrote: >>> > Where does your faith that other /bin/sh implementations (dash, >>> > busybox, etc.) are less buggy comes from? >>> >>> The fact that they are simpler, in terms of lines of code. It's no >>> guarantee, but the less a given piece of code does, the less bugs it will >>> have. -- H >> >> And that they have less "features" (which is certainly correlated to >> their simplicity). IIUC, the misimplemented feature leading to this >> vulnerability is a bash-ism. > > IIRC you could export functions in ksh. Or maybe only aliases. But that > implies most POSIX shells may support it.
From my understanding KSH's function export is so a function becomes available in the caller of a script e.g. if you define a function in your .kshrc it's internal to the file (and won't be available in the interactive shell) unless you export it: http://users.speakeasy.net/~arkay/216-7.4KshFunctions.html KSH (and ZSH) will also load functions from files on $FPATH, but AFAIK that's it. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
