From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <corinna@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 2155)
	id F18A53858D1E; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:19:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F18A53858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1681892396;
	bh=FT+4+Q+E7YLwdWvV5yBL2Kd98FVXHK0TpjscqpR/XxA=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=psiQbwOY8Ay8kBnrWj7zXVHqirKdazDXSJ4gHZxIMsJh4N1PRTrp5PUr6AWMXe71T
	 wqrQH40eN7RNPiDj7jdJExIin9alHpxChiUr4+42LSspWoTQoQspo7Q+xjL+l5v/2T
	 ZArfqZAZYxgTfvnDH1F+LEjf5kIT78WGQVsfcApo=
Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 1985BA80B9C; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:19:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:19:55 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: posix_spawn facility
Message-ID: <ZD+kK0mMzqCS6Vj0@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>,
	Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <1752276.7aRn1RRit1@nimes>
 <ZD5h973pS0tVenD0@calimero.vinschen.de>
 <xsn3qmrcprucviwtwoehm5hfgna5nogttqgud3ut6t2craprjp@6u5dgtopjfig>
 <1741636.G7SD5HZVK5@nimes>
 <wqmniudnbjv4rdm4wa5a4lxbfoipvmdmsvi646ndaksfgne4s3@4xfdvvdd4g62>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <wqmniudnbjv4rdm4wa5a4lxbfoipvmdmsvi646ndaksfgne4s3@4xfdvvdd4g62>
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>

On Apr 18 21:39, Eric Blake via Cygwin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:10:34AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Eric Blake wrote:
> > > we now have implementations in the wild that differ in behavior, and
> > > use security as a reason for the divergence, it is worth getting that
> > > clarified in POSIX.  I'll file a bug against POSIX shortly
> > 
> > For the reference, the systems that return ENOEXEC for posix_spawnp
> > attempting to execute a script without #! marker are:
> >   - glibc/Linux ≥ 2.15
> >   - glibc/Hurd ≥ 2.33 (commit 13adfa34aff03fd9f1c1612b537a0d736ddb6c2b)
> >   - musl libc
> 
> POSIX issue now filed as
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674; although we'll have
> to see if my wording is acceptable or if it settles on something a bit
> looser (such as implementation-defined as to whether an sh fallback is
> attempted, rather than outright forbidden).

Thank you!


Corinna