From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5525 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2015 15:51:59 -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: 34917 Received: (qmail 13855 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2015 15:51:58 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UG5xb3GSelgLg9jGZlN5U4Cc3vz14oVYZ0+louVDcPA=; b=kCYgIAyDz+2PzQxhsoCnFEh5L9kH4c4Mqh10t24gL/uB7aq90ewyFZIqf/o7Sq2Z3a ptPXQyn1z35lGU5+hTcnHQnQe5RERjWVO/wpxIJe7cYagg3+MBT9Fs4uhrscTsDuCgRz srtbqv9TsxllilZLdftkbpBTD2kE7IHDrAsUCw4GYgJEaiF14bp/qzqPRQPPZPG2pwGP cV6U3MYF6sJ6j0upI/sW6YxsjYmHtGP1HSmb3QqoYbvPedu3Ya2iBWDmqJXVYROHZxgk aLJOaYqufBeJxMnL42Nus2CJH8+bDuwbGrKzGglul2My7eH1wLDeEK3LfaAfmB9yrB19 XRLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnrdxnlcd25J0iAY3itnClVDvfaNWpmyAr0LTBfZbEZSuBuwNOp9ad5SM9wOEZMduHjARv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.195.11.73 with SMTP id eg9mr7194081wjd.62.1429285911524; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:51:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1429285287.7285.11.camel@niobium.home.fifi.org> References: <1429277155-24607-1-git-send-email-kdudka@redhat.com> <1429285287.7285.11.camel@niobium.home.fifi.org> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:51:51 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] report bad ELF interpreter if it causes exec to fail From: Bart Schaefer To: Zsh hackers list Cc: Kamil Dudka Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Troin wrote: >> Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/711067 > > This is such a corner case. > It shouldn't be the shell's job to reinterpret the errno codes returned > by the underlying OS. > This patch does not belong in the shell code IMHO, but at a lower-level. My thoughts exactly. This is NOT the shell's responsibility and I recommend rejecting this patch.