Glenn Fowler wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:41:07 -0400 James Carlson wrote: > > April Chin writes: [snip] > > Whatever bit of text documents this path (the original case proposed > > "Volatile" stability for the /usr/ast/bin mechanism, which means it's > > a public interface) should note that it may cause trouble with > > pfksh93. Other than that, this seems fine. > > maybe for now pf should trump all builtins but the ones already allowed > whether by /usr/ast/bin or not
I don't think that killing all builtins is the right solution. > is this a restriction issue? is a user knowingly executing an explicit builtin > a violation (as in a restricted shell sense)? Uhm.. AFAIK no. The profile shell is not a "restricted" shell. If I remeber it correctly it works more like "sudo" - some commands are executed with special priviledges automagically. IMO there should be no restriction of loading new builtins or deleting them in a normal profile shell (e.g. I am not sure whether it's usefull to run "rksh93" in profile shell mode or "pfksh93" in restricted shell mode (but I wouldn't prevent users from doing that, maybe there is the one or other interesting usage of such a setup... :-) )). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
