On 1/13/16 12:41 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> but it prints a misleading error message with an even more truncated
>>> hash-bang line.
>>
>> Again, it's only a cosmetic issue. I don't have a problem with increasing
>> the buffer size, but let's not pretend it's anything but that.
>
> Exactly.
Chet Ramey skribis:
> On 1/13/16 8:52 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Greg Wooledge skribis:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hello,
The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes
from
the hash-bang line. T
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:23:34AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/13/16 9:04 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:52:08PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> Sure, but the fact that it???s smaller than that of the kernel Linux is
> >> problematic: when a hash-bang line > 127 char
On 1/13/16 9:04 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:52:08PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Sure, but the fact that it???s smaller than that of the kernel Linux is
>> problematic: when a hash-bang line > 127 chars is encountered, ???execve???
>> fails with ENOENT, so Bash???s fal
On 1/13/16 8:52 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Greg Wooledge skribis:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes from
>>> the hash-bang line. This is less than the already-small 12
On 1/13/16 5:25 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The ‘READ_SAMPLE_BUF’ macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes from
> the hash-bang line. This is less than the already-small 128-byte limit
> in the Linux kernel¹ and can quite easily be hit².
That limit is huge compared to other Unix
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:52:08PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Sure, but the fact that it???s smaller than that of the kernel Linux is
> problematic: when a hash-bang line > 127 chars is encountered, ???execve???
> fails with ENOENT, so Bash???s fallback code is executed, fails as well,
> but i
Greg Wooledge skribis:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes from
>> the hash-bang line. This is less than the already-small 128-byte limit
>> in the Linux kernel¹ and can quite
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes from
> the hash-bang line. This is less than the already-small 128-byte limit
> in the Linux kernel¹ and can quite easily be hit².
That's actually
