From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752558Ab0CTM4L (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:56:11 -0400 Received: from web110306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.8.206]:29233 "HELO web110306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752495Ab0CTM4J convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:56:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=H5PrHmQdLAlcll36LrvFY8ptAqDxfXsMY6XqUlMOCv/x6TNNJ2ddVXYDbPhgBjLFBliXTuGz+VaqZPH1p+P7YuTKbYkAbNHdTmV8KUPAu4hKfxo6tZD2AMvy/iAOdx35xLJptEasQpvcjl5nLAbVpo3hF17v5ygedKxpWno4CqI=; Message-ID: <435973.80037.qm@web110306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: oLKFOCQVM1kxwArJJN.Iw4DDmQRRcfInRckYEPWOctF9FxB OSc534yNYGtUC8olHrpRZ4PQ_M.6XIZOOQT6fVzw2cS1l9OScTe1kfaioBQh 2v5XCgztEFopLRkbYMeuDD.trUEazUWqJJb2GrkKlnwPJqLXkMxJgb_h4oOu bgqGf8In6vxtyqQRIBfFJAkj5RWGWgdDffT3_RH5C5ZWmRDYMC34WCojP4MZ yAZM4WURYIrYsIBGyXm6ECzOHFJ8tixg9NKZfJqCDmazZcfLLaZ0k8..APjp Oo4MevibLunc1w7nW5lKjb.9xj92kAtul5Pw5ZR.rwB.FNxv8UTo9i7_PO7Q k87TgKRjvL7j9noGgJRapxQ-- X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/10.0.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:56:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Valery Reznic Subject: Re: execve for script don't return ENOEXEC, bug ? To: David Newall Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4BA49864.7080503@davidnewall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- On Sat, 3/20/10, David Newall wrote: > From: David Newall > Subject: Re: execve for script don't return ENOEXEC, bug ? > To: "Valery Reznic" > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 11:41 AM > Valery Reznic wrote: > > [valery@localhost ~]$ cat a.sh #!/bin/sh > > echo "It's a.sh" > > [valery@localhost ~]$ cat b.sh #! ./a.sh > > echo "It's b.sh" > > [valery@localhost ~]$ [valery@localhost ~]$ strace -f > -e execve setarch i386 ./b.sh execve("/usr/bin/setarch", > ["setarch", "i386", "./b.sh"], [/* 40 vars */]) = 0 > > execve("./b.sh", ["./b.sh"], [/* 40 vars */]) = 0 > > It's a.sh > >    > > That is the correct output for a script which is being > interpreted by a.sh, when a.sh prints "It's a.sh" using > /bin/sh as its interpreter.  Remember, you didn't ask > /bin/sh to interpret b.sh, you asked a.sh to do it, and a.sh > is a simple echo statement, not an interpreter.  There > is no error here. execve's man page state that script's interprtert should not be interpreter itself: ------------------------------------------------------ Interpreter scripts An interpreter script is a text file that has execute permission enabled and whose first line is of the form: #! interpreter [optional-arg] The interpreter must be a valid pathname for an executable which is not itself a script. ------------------------------------------------------ I.e, execve should return ENOEXEC. And it did it at least in Fedora 8 and earlier. To me it looks like execve and it's man page disagree. Do you know is it new intended behaviour of execve and just man page wasn't update or it's a bug in execve ? Valery. >