From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/796 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: configure script for musl (?!) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:26:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20120502162656.GR14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120501225408.GM14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120501233926.GN14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120502140004.GB17745@openwall.com> <20120502143125.GO14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120502150543.GB18084@openwall.com> <20120502153903.GQ14673@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120502154110.GA18306@openwall.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1335975815 27596 80.91.229.3 (2 May 2012 16:23:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:23:35 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-797-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed May 02 18:23:35 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SPcKy-0007qo-PF for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2012 18:23:32 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9891 invoked by uid 550); 2 May 2012 16:23:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 9881 invoked from network); 2 May 2012 16:23:31 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120502154110.GA18306@openwall.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:796 Archived-At: On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:41:10PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > Since set is a shell builtin, I was assuming it won't fail, but I can > > add "|| fail msg_here" to it. > > FWIW, I was referring to possible script invocations with a non-POSIX > shell. If these merely fail to configure musl, that's acceptable. > If they expose the invoking user to unexpected security risks, that's > another story. Yes, but I don't know any way to detect that a shell is non-conformant short of checking for failure after we perform some particular option (like set -C) that's possibly broken in non-POSIX shells. Rich