I sent this in response about 12 hours ago but haven't seen it
come though on the list, so thought I'd resend it.
Original Message
Subject: Re: remaking bash, trying static, glibc refuses static...?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:55:24 -0700
From: Linda Walsh <>
To: bug-bash@gnu.or
On 8/19/15 11:48 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:39:15AM +, Craig wrote:
>> It's somewhat cumbersome to have to transport this assert function from
>> project to project, so it would save a considerable amount of effort and
>> time if it were built-in.
>
>> function asser
Greg Wooledge wrote:
(Wow, how did we get here from "-e does not take effects in subshell"?)
---
because the POSIX spec changed and bash's handling of "-e"
changed to follow the new spec.
The earlier spec had -e only exit a script if a *simple* (external)
command failed. It didn't include
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 18 Aug 2015 21:41, Linda Walsh wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 18 Aug 2015 13:34, Linda Walsh wrote:
(2) it's using the nss system which lets people drop modules into the system
at anytime and change the overall lookups to use that. statically linking a
specific subs
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 03:31:10PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> with 'rm' functionality to remove '/' '.' and '..' was prohibited
> by POSIX, though the coreutils version still allows the choice
> of the more dangerous removal of '/' with with the --[no-]preserve-root.
>
> But the more useful "rm
On 8/18/15 5:05 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Sorry I meant to reply to that thread but ran out of time. I think Stephane's
> eventual proposal was pretty close to what I had in mind but expressed badly.
> I'm not sure why it was eventually decided to deprecate the current system
> entirely but I'm n
On 8/19/15 5:58 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> (Wow, how did we get here from "-e does not take effects in subshell"?)
>>
> ---
> because the POSIX spec changed and bash's handling of "-e"
> changed to follow the new spec.
This is true, though I would have used `revised'
Chet Ramey wrote:
The earlier spec had -e only exit a script if a *simple* (external)
command failed. It didn't include builtins nor functions.
This is not; builtins and functions are simple commands.
---
The builtins are _complex_ binary blobs that replace external commands.
Functions are
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
[cut a lot about dynamic linking and the linux kernel]
> Even bash can load many of it's builtin's dynamically -- but if they
> aren't there, it could use the same named-programs -- and I don't
> think it "falls-over" and dies if it can't dynamic
Just FYI, if this were really a critical security issue, this is not how you
should disclose it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/3h997d/bash_integer_overflow/
You have to first contact the maintainer in private, make sure the issue is
acknowleged, fixed, and that the fix is available to
10 matches
Mail list logo
