On Jul 15, 2014, at 7:13 PM, dte...@freebsd.org wrote: > I would argue that not all programs are going to like having > a nearly empty environment. Things like TERM and SHLVL > at the very least should be passed (after-all, the boot process > takes place on [a] a terminal and [b] in a shell).
Having launchd scrub every processes environment down to nothing, then have environment variables be set explicitly as part of that processes’ “launch contract” was one of the best decisions we ever made at Apple. The Unix process environment is a septic tank, and that’s actually being kind since most septic tanks don’t also contain bottles of nerve gas and the occasional live hand grenade. Many parts of the environment are trivially attackable, and if anyone on the CC line thinks they know the full extent of that attack surface, they’re wrong. Not because there aren’t some extremely smart Unix people in the audience, but because it’s simply impossible to know how each and every environment variable will be used, how it can overflow, or how it can be used to permute a program’s behavior in unpredictable ways. Even if the intention isn’t to be hostile, you can still cause some truly Heisenbergian results by having the environment be unpredictable in nature. It may not be “Unixy”, but Unix didn’t grow up in a world with millions of instances of itself or the big, bad Internet encompassing pretty much every country on earth. Changes need to be made to keep up with the times, and you can rest assured that FreeBSD’s competition is making those changes or has already made them. I also find it a frankly weird assertion that a background service would care about the value of TERM. That sounds like a pretty warped service to me, since assuming interactivity is more the exception than the rule these days. - Jordan _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
