linux-kernel - Re: script relative shebang

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3EFB0946-2224-46B0-B109-12E1556260FD@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 02 Jun 2016 23:41:44 +0100
From:	Boris <ribalkin@...il.com>
To:	Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@...world.com>
CC:	"Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vladimir Sapronov <vladimir.sapronov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: script relative shebang

I still think it is a good thing to do.
I will try to implement it on github and may be some day someone influential will help me with that :)

On 2 June 2016 05:19:34 BST, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@...world.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:04:46AM +0100, Boris Rybalkin wrote:
>> Sorry for insisting, but I would like to explore potential solutions
>> for fixing the root problem (missing relative shebang),
>> I know there are ways to workaround that, but I would like to make
>> sure the proper fix is not possible.
>> I understood that it is too late to introduce additional keywords
>> after #! as existing systems expect fs path there, OK.
>> But what about changing #! itself, is it possible to introduce
>another
>> special sequence like #? to denote a relative mode:
>> 
>> #?python/bin/python
>> 
>If you are able to get that accepted, it will only work on linux
>systems running such recent kernels.  For your own systems, you can
>of course do whatever you wish.  But for public availability you
>will then need to wait several years until your target linux users
>can be expected to have moved to a suitable kernel (presumably the
>*next* long-term stable kernel after the change is accepted : I
>guess that version is perhaps the best part of a year away even if
>your change got accepted into 4.8, and then you need your users'
>distros to move to it).
>
>To me, that doesn't seem worth the trouble (to you) of coding it,
>getting it reviewed and eventually accepted, and then fixing up
>whatever problems arise after it gets into linux-next [ problems
>will always appear, even if the new code turns out not to be the
>cause ].
>
>And first, you have to persuade somebody influential that this is a
>good thing to do, particularly when people have suggested
>alternative approaches.  I don't count, but at the moment I've not
>seen any good reasons why the kernel should be changed to support
>this.
>
>But it's your time, and your itch to scratch.
>
>ĸen

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.