On Tuesday 24 February 2009 5:51:59 pm Ben Klein wrote: > Not correct. I've tested with vfat and ext2 filesystems, with noexec, > and the files are still marked +x. As it turns out, noexec doesn't > filter +x, just prevents shell/ld.so/kernel from loading the program. > Wine is an indirect method of loading a program in comparison. > > An interesting point, assuming that /mnt/test is mounted noexec: > $ /mnt/test/test.sh > bash: /mnt/test/test.sh: /bin/sh: bad interpreter: Permission denied > > $ sh /mnt/test/test.sh > Script runs
That is interesting.. > So maybe this is a matter of semantics: is Wine an executable handler > (note binfmt-misc) or an executable interpreter? Should the Windows > application, when passed as an argument to Wine, behave as if it's > been called directly, or should it behave as if the executable has > been passed to an interpreter (i.e., interpreter reads and processes > the file as opposed to executing it directly)? I would say it's as if it's called directly. After all, Wine Is Not an Emulator (and by extension, an interpreter). :) The program is run by the system, not Wine.. Wine basically just loads it into memory so the system can run it.