[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hash-bang line length

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: Hash-bang line length
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:21:10 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1

On 1/13/16 8:52 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Greg Wooledge <address@hidden> skribis:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes from
>>> the hash-bang line.  This is less than the already-small 128-byte limit
>>> in the Linux kernel¹ and can quite easily be hit².
>> That's actually much bigger than one expects for shebang handling on
>> any traditional Unix system.
> Sure, but the fact that it’s smaller than that of the kernel Linux is
> problematic: when a hash-bang line > 127 chars is encountered, ‘execve’
> fails with ENOENT, so Bash’s fallback code is executed, fails as well,

No.  Since the execve fails with ENOENT, bash just prints an error

> but it prints a misleading error message with an even more truncated
> hash-bang line.

Again, it's only a cosmetic issue.  I don't have a problem with increasing
the buffer size, but let's not pretend it's anything but that.

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]