Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Greg Wooledge Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug Subject: Re: Bash crash Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:33:07 -0400 Lines: 16 Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <56264216.2060606@case.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1445517195 23683 208.118.235.17 (22 Oct 2015 12:33:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu Cc: "bug-bash@gnu.org" To: Kai Wang X Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 139.137.100.1 X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11742 On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:39:43AM +0000, Kai Wang X wrote: > The process named "com" launched by script command "com.sh start". Pls refer to the attached files. It looks easy, doesn't it? It looks like a horrible mish-mash of legacy Bourne shell syntax, edited later by another person using certain post-Bourne shell constructs (note the inconsistent use of test and [ commands), with quoting failures thrown in for good measure (lots of [ -e ${foo} ] commands). I cringed at the `expr` all over the place, and stopped reading halfway through. The shebang is #!/bin/sh and it's using half-Bourne half-POSIX code, so if you suspect a bug in bash, why not just let it run under some other shell? /bin/sh does not link to bash on most operating systems. Not even on all of the Linux-based operating systems.