From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28578 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2015 15:59:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34918 Received: (qmail 12866 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2015 15:59:13 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 From: Kamil Dudka To: Oliver Kiddle Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] report bad ELF interpreter if it causes exec to fail Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:59:04 +0200 Message-ID: <2127409.yB077Jb7Wn@kdudka.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.6 (Linux/3.19.1-201.fc21.x86_64; KDE/4.14.6; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <30591.1429284100@thecus.kiddle.eu> References: <1429277155-24607-1-git-send-email-kdudka@redhat.com> <30591.1429284100@thecus.kiddle.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 On Friday 17 April 2015 17:21:40 Oliver Kiddle wrote: > This behaviour got mentioned on one of the blogs that I tend to read > here: > > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/BashSuperintelligentExec > > I would agree with the conclusion of that blog writer that this is going > a little bit overboard. > > Also, I'm fairly sure that this would require linking with libelf on > some systems which is an added dependency. > > Oliver Why would the patch require linking with libelf? The patch does not rely on any symbols provided by the libelf library. It just optionally uses if the header file is available during build. Kamil