The addition of unveil broke interactive mode since ask() assumes the
default answer if it fails to open _PATH_TTY. Questions are only asked
if neither force nor batch mode is activated, so condition on those.
It seams cleaner to do unveil _PATH_TTY than to add a tty pledge since
as far as I can see no ioctls on /dev/tty are emitted.
Without this patch:
$ cd usr.bin
$ patch -Rs < /path/to/patch.below
File to patch:
No file found--skip this patch? [y]
1 out of 1 hunks ignored--saving rejects to Oops.rej
With this patch:
$ cd usr.bin
$ patch -Rs < /path/to/patch.below
File to patch: patch/patch.c
Unreversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Ignore -R? [y] y
Obviously the unveil(".", rwc) places restrictions on the path that can
be given, but that's expected.
Index: patch.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/patch/patch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.73
diff -u -p -4 -r1.73 patch.c
--- patch.c 15 Jul 2023 10:42:54 -0000 1.73
+++ patch.c 19 Jul 2023 11:09:37 -0000
@@ -222,8 +222,13 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (unveil(filearg[1], "r") == -1) {
perror("unveil");
my_exit(2);
}
+ if (!force && !batch)
+ if (unveil(_PATH_TTY, "rw") == -1) {
+ perror("unveil");
+ my_exit(2);
+ }
if (unveil(".", "rwc") == -1) {
perror("unveil");
my_exit(2);
}
