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

[Joe Simmons-Talbott <josimmon@redhat.com>]

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