Re: [PATCH] system: Add "--" after "-c" for sh (BZ #28519)

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>]

On 28/03/23 09:52, Joe Simmons-Talbott via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 03:50:35PM -0400, Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, at 3:34 PM, Cristian Rodríguez via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:56 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Libc-
>>> alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not sure if it should be ok to break such environments, at least
>>>> there are available shells in some environments.
>>>
>>> Isn't a posix compliant shell already required as "/bin/sh" ? if it is
>>> not in writing..it is already de facto required.
>>
>> I wouldn't go so far as to say that, _but_ setting a version of the C
>> shell as /bin/sh is definitely an improper system configuration and will
>> break tons of other things.
>>
>>> A lot of work has already been done to get basic components running
>>> with dash which has strict compliance as goals.
>>
>> You're thinking about this patch from the wrong end of things; whether
>> this is a safe change to make is not about other programs that might not
>> work with _no more than_ the features specified by POSIX for /bin/sh.
>> Rather, it is a question of whether glibc can safely assume availability
>> of _all of_ the features specified by POSIX for /bin/sh, in particular
>> unusual corners of command line option handling.
>>
>> I think it would be a good idea to test this patch on a system where
>> /bin/sh is busybox sh, and one where /bin/sh is mksh.
> 
> I tested both busybox and mksh with the patch and they both accept the
> '--' after '-c' and behave as expected.
> 
> Joe
> 


As Andreas added, we already assume a Bourne-compatible shell.  So the
patch is ok, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>