DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8E8003858D32
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DB6P18901MB005559D81FD4125B0D6DAA07A4919@DB6P18901MB0055.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <ZC58y18KZCSQOnP9@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZC58y18KZCSQOnP9@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:23:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGHQO_7SJPksHQU2mNa9_UBjWdVi5wQDmxyCBnougynsJzWAgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bash shell script: recently running, now failing
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
From: Scott Smith via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: Scott Smith <grimblefritz@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Place the nul on the third line. For example:

#!/bin/bash
#
# ^@ identify as a binary file
...


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 4:03 AM Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <
cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:

> On Apr  6 04:43, Fergus Daly via Cygwin wrote:
> > I have a "hash bang" bash shell script i.e. first line
> > #! /bin/sh
> > or equivalently
> > #! /bin/bash
> > For various reasons I want this file to be identified as binary so its
> second line
> > is the single character null \x00 showing up in some editors e.g. nano as
> >  ^@
> > This does not prevent the script from running to a successful conclusion.
> > Or not until recently. Now the script fails with
> > /home/user/bin/file.old.sh: cannot execute binary file
> > Q1 - was bash recently updated? Would this explain the changed behaviour?
>
> bash was recently updated from 4.4.12 to 5.2.15.
>
> The behaviour is the same in bash on Linux.  Take this file with
> a \0 in line 2:
>
>   $ cat -v x.sh
>   #! /bin/bash
>   ^@
>   echo foo
>   $ bash --version | head -1
>   GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
>   $ ./x.sh
>   ./x.sh: ./x.sh: cannot execute binary file
>
> While dash on Linux runs the script:
>
>   $ sed -i -e 's/bash/dash/' x.sh
>   $ ./x.sh
>   foo
>
> > Q2 - if so, is this newly introduced "glitch" known and presumably
> > intended? Or an unintended consequence that will be retracted in a
> > later update?
>
> Bash follows the POSIX standard:
>
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html#tag_20_117_07
>
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_403
>
> So I don't expect this will change any time soon.
>
> > Q3 - at 1/8 the size of bash and sh, I am not at all sure of the role
> and reach of dash.
>
> Dash is a minimal shell with no bells and whistles.  It loads ands runs
> slightly faster than bash.  If you only need bare minimum bourne shell
> behaviour, it's a good choice for scripts.
>
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple