Re: ignoring current shell and always running posix shell? Re: Should this be this way?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:52:54PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: > Sorta makes the idea of a restricted shell a bit less useful. Honestly, a "restricted shell" is usually a pitiful thing that would be a joke, except it's not even funny. It's what people tried to use for security back in like 1990 when nobody had a clue about security. Typically the users find a way out of the "restricted shell" within a couple hours by trying shell escapes in every command available to them (man page viewer, text editor, etc.) until one of them works. I have no idea what the POSIX standard has to do with your question, though.
Re: ignoring current shell and always running posix shell? Re: Should this be this way?
On 3/14/13 2:52 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > > > Chet Ramey wrote: >> The default bash behavior and the SuSE modification are both conformant. > > Is 'rbash' not part of POSIX? Posix has chosen not to standardize the restricted shell, either `rsh' or `set -r'. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: trim_pathname in general.c should use memmove rather than memcpy
On 3/13/13 5:17 PM, Matthew Riley wrote: > ... > nlen = nend - ntail; > memcpy (nbeg, ntail, nlen); > nbeg[nlen] = '\0'; > > return name; > ... > > [nbeg, nbeg+nlen) and [ntail, ntail+nlen) can overlap, so this code should > use memmove. I'm pretty sure this explains why sometimes using > PROMPT_DIRTRIM will give me a prompt with the last few components smeared > over the rest of the string: Good catch. Thanks for the report. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
