On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:16 AM, ivo welch <[email protected]> wrote: > [1] this is an esoteric question from a new user: does systemd still > need a unix shell, like sh, bash, zsh, etc.? I know the first-stage > usually does (i.e., the initrd), but if the second stage systemd does > not, then I could remove all shells from my linux [e.g., by removing > the USB drive that hosts stage1] and just run my custom server (e.g., > think ftp) on my dedicated machine. this would obviously make it just > a little harder to break into the system---if a remote > zero-day-exploit hacker cannot get a unix shell prompt, presumably it > becomes just a little more difficult to wreak havoc. (background: I > actually run my main linux system from a custom CD-ROM already, and > the data device is noexec.)
systemd as service manager doesn't need a shell, neither for the initramfs nor for the main system. (Rescue/emergency modes launch an interactive shell; so does debug-shell.service; and *ctl tools launch $PAGER through /bin/sh. That's about it.) However, some distros might have quite a few custom .service units that run shell scripts. Programs that call system() depend on /bin/sh. And even if you get rid of shells, you'll still have other script interpreters... -- Mantas Mikulėnas <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
