On 3/14/13 2:52 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> The default bash behavior and the SuSE modification are both conformant.
>
> Is 'rbash' not part of POSIX?
Posix has chosen not to standardize the restricted shell, either `rsh' or
`set -r'.
--
``The lyf so short, th
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:52:54PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Sorta makes the idea of a restricted shell a bit less useful.
Honestly, a "restricted shell" is usually a pitiful thing that would be
a joke, except it's not even funny. It's what people tried to use for
security back in like 1990 whe
On 14 March 2013 14:52, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Is 'rbash' not part of POSIX?
I think you misunderstand what POSIX Is. bash in general is not "part
of POSIX", neither is any other shell (other than the POSIX shell,
which is purely theoretical). It has POSIX compliant features when run
in POSIX compl
Chet Ramey wrote:
> The default bash behavior and the SuSE modification are both conformant.
Is 'rbash' not part of POSIX?
I.e. if I run in a restricted shell, it is consider POSIX compliant
to elevate the user to /bin/sh when executing unlabeled script lines?
Sorta makes the idea
On 3/11/13 6:37 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> It would make no sense for posix to take the stance that any
> unknown script without a shebang at the top, presented to any interpreter
> shell
> be ignored by the interpreter and instead shall be run under /bin/sh.
The Posix shell specification on
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is likely that the document is assuming you are running on
>>> a POSIX compliant system where all users use the same shell so there is
>>> only 1 shell, thus the use of the word 'the' when refer
Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is likely that the document is assuming you are running on
>> a POSIX compliant system where all users use the same shell so there is
>> only 1 shell, thus the use of the word 'the' when referring to the shell.
>>
> Of course, it's the posix specificati
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
>>> I think the line above will produce unspecified behavior.
>
>> Man bash says:
>> If this execution fails because the file is not in executable
>> format, and t
Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
>> I think the line above will produce unspecified behavior.
> Man bash says:
> If this execution fails because the file is not in executable
> format, and the file is not a directory, it is assumed to be a shell
> scr
