| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090730201720.GA30001@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:17:20 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@....EDU> Cc: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script's interpreter doesn't exist. On Thu 2009-07-30 13:08:58, Jonathan Reed wrote: >> NAK. Current behaviour is useful -- and it is really file thats >> missing. > > The current behavior is only useful to people who have an understanding > of how interpreters and binaries work on Linux. The average desktop > user Proposed behaviour is useless to everyone. > does not have that understanding. The average user gets an error message > such as: > > /usr/bin/foo: No such file or directory. > > They then go and look at /usr/bin/foo, find that it exists, and are > extremely confused. ENOEXEC is confusing, too. It will have x bit. >> Please improve manpage instead. > > What manpage do you suggest needs improvement? execve(2)? That >again execve, I'd say. > requires an average user to realize that they need to go look at the > execve(2) manpage. The average user is not going to realize that. Improve shells to provide more helpful error message? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists