Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: L A Walsh <bash@tlinx.org>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: shebang-less script execution not resetting some options
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:26:03 -0700
Lines: 26
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.758.1570022772.2651.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <CAMu=BrpjDvF9Rz=JFaGoxV5AwjRoq=aC1htaybVz_kPFsDinbA@mail.gmail.com> <5D9334F8.3090503@tlinx.org> <20191001124135.GJ28751@eeg.ccf.org> <5D9477C6.2000002@tlinx.org> <895e1eb5-d3be-c6fe-8e12-b98765a2b167@iki.fi> <5D94A56B.2000003@tlinx.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1570022773 2415 209.51.188.17 (2 Oct 2019 13:26:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu
Cc: Ilkka Virta <itvirta@iki.fi>
To: bug-bash <bug-bash@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <895e1eb5-d3be-c6fe-8e12-b98765a2b167@iki.fi>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] [fuzzy]
X-Received-From: 173.164.175.65
X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <5D94A56B.2000003@tlinx.org>
X-Mailman-Original-References: <CAMu=BrpjDvF9Rz=JFaGoxV5AwjRoq=aC1htaybVz_kPFsDinbA@mail.gmail.com> <5D9334F8.3090503@tlinx.org> <20191001124135.GJ28751@eeg.ccf.org> <5D9477C6.2000002@tlinx.org> <895e1eb5-d3be-c6fe-8e12-b98765a2b167@iki.fi>
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:15454



On 2019/10/02 03:49, Ilkka Virta wrote:
>
>          If the execl() function fails due to an error equivalent to the
>          [ENOEXEC] [...] the shell shall execute a command equivalent to
>          having a shell invoked with the pathname resulting from the
>          search as its first operand, [...]
>
> [ 
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_01_01 
> ]
>
> -----
>
> I think that last sentence above is the relevant part. The standard only 
> says to "invoke a shell". It doesn't say which shell, probably because 
> it only specifies one.
>   
POSIX probably doesn't mandate secure passwords, firewalls, malware
detection,
etc.  Just because posix doesn't require it, doesn't mean it is a good idea
to ignore it.