I'm really curious to see if anyone else offers better ideas, but the ways
I've done this are
1) exactly what you propose.
2) use a subshell (parantheses):
$ ( for x in a b c; { echo $x; } )
a
b
c
$ typeset -p x
bash: typeset: x: not found
3) use a function and declare x local to the function
I'll agree it's non-obvious, but this works for me on a BASH 2.x I have
handy.
arwild01@BRONX:~$ echo $BASH_VERSION
2.05b.0(1)-release
arwild01@BRONX:~$ function myfunc() { :; }
arwild01@BRONX:~$ declare -f myfunc
myfunc ()
{
:
}
-Alan
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Tim Friske wrote:
>
) to
understand whether they were in line with Red Hat.
-Alan
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/26/2014 02:57 PM, Alan Wild wrote:
> > I want to apologize for adding more confusion to this issue. My
> statements
> > about CVE-2014-7169 where incorrec
; "$@"; }; export -f x;
env | egrep "functions still work"'
BASH_FUNC_x()=() { echo "functions still work" "$@"
-Alan
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Alan Wild wrote:
> Not that I get a "vote", but if I did... I'm completely supp
reasonable middle-ground then
pulling it altogether.
-Alan
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Alan Wild wrote:
> I've been searching for some clarification on these two "fixes" and I'm
> utterly confused. I've been lead to believe RedHat's first patch (6271) is
&
I've been searching for some clarification on these two "fixes" and I'm
utterly confused. I've been lead to believe RedHat's first patch (6271) is
based on code from Chet that just causes bash to reject functions where
code appears outside of the function body.
However, this patch was labeled as
