On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 2:27 AM Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> wrote:
> Am 27.06.2018 um 04:15 schrieb Elijah Newren:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 04:46:18PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> >>> Some of these dangers can be de-thoothed during the linting phase by
> >>> defining do-nothing shell functions:
> >>> cp () { :; }
> >>> That, at least, makes the scariest case ("rm") much less so.
> >>
> >> Now that's an interesting idea. We can't catch every dangerous action
> >> (notably ">" would be hard to override), but it should be pretty cheap
> >> to cover some obvious ones.
> >
> > Crazy idea: maybe we could defang it a little more thoroughly with
> > something like the following (apologies in advance if gmail whitespace
> > damages this):
> >
> > - if test "OK-117" != "$(test_eval_ "(exit 117) &&
> > $1${LF}${LF}echo OK-\$?" 3>&1)"
> > + if test "OK-117" != "$(test_eval_ "cd() { return 0; }
> > && PATH=/dev/null && export PATH && (exit 117) && $1${LF}${LF}echo
> > OK-\$?" 3>&1)"
Interesting idea (coupled with Hannes's point below)...
> I'd define all these functions as { return 1; } because we want to stop
> any && chain as early as possible (and with an exit code that is not the
> sentinel value).
A very sensible suggestion.
