Subject: Re: posix_spawn facility
From: Eric Blake via Cygwin <[email-masked]>
To: Bruno Haible <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 21:39:56 -0500
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:10:34AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > we now have implementations in the wild that differ in behavior, and
> > use security as a reason for the divergence, it is worth getting that
> > clarified in POSIX.  I'll file a bug against POSIX shortly
> 
> For the reference, the systems that return ENOEXEC for posix_spawnp
> attempting to execute a script without #! marker are:
>   - glibc/Linux ≥ 2.15
>   - glibc/Hurd ≥ 2.33 (commit 13adfa34aff03fd9f1c1612b537a0d736ddb6c2b)
>   - musl libc

POSIX issue now filed as
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674; although we'll have
to see if my wording is acceptable or if it settles on something a bit
looser (such as implementation-defined as to whether an sh fallback is
attempted, rather than outright forbidden).

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

-- 
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