linux-kernel - Re: Another version of cleanfile/cleanpatch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706080719080.31739@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:27:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kbuild-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Another version of cleanfile/cleanpatch



On Jun 8 2007 01:06, Oleg Verych wrote:

>- empty lines in the end of file (patches can't be handled, or can? :).

Yes it can.

>Body -- is a commented sed script with shell variables for source/patch
>handling switch and compatibility with other versions of sed, not only GNU.
>If you like more tabs, then i stated in whitespace damage, just use
>"unexpand".

sed just does not cut it anymore. Perl regexes win in the long term.

>> Yes, UNIX was designed to handle fork-exec efficiently, thank God. But
>> still.
>[]
>> >    efforts to remove bashizms...
>> 
>> I prefer bashisms over using a shell [referring to original sh or ksh]
>> that can't do a sane thing.
>
>I would like to know cases. Just to try to solve them.
>
>Two from my head are:
>
>- `set pipefail' option -- not problem at all [0]
>- arrays.
>
>Arrays. Well, that depends. My option is as follows.

If you need arrays or a lot of substr magic, well, it's perhaps time to
consider a switch to a scripted language (perl, python, php, whatever comes
around). But I really meant these handy bash features:

  for i in {1..5}; do ...; done;
  if [ ]; then ...; fi;
  echo $[ math expr ];
  echo `backtick` and $(backtick with dollar-parentheses);

  The possibility to say if [ "$any" == "" ] (not having to use
  crap like [ "x$any" == "x" ].

  The possibility to say if [ -z "$any" ]

On the other hand, if you wanted to extinguish bashisms, then you'd
also need to do so for kshisms like

  if [[ ]]

>OK, to not to go offtopic, i would say here, that if that temp file on the
>tmpfs, then Linux directly helps you with its efficient memory
>management, not libc (good addition to fork/clone-execve, isn't it? ;)

And don't assume everything is a UNIX. CreateProcess() is particularly
expensive on Windows, burdening even Cygwin's fork()/exec() emulation.



	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/