X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=k0VJzc/ dPxPHbqf1cJb1z7n/kZJiyHV44geOA6YNC+Mk4UiViHH2SO7wnCKT8zAEo5EIPpK ycYfySYo47LK9Qvz9CKEz1qwC8hnMZ9W3CF3j2hMzMX170BMJ+YEpr9FYXVxfJQB z6x73orQ/UrQ/HqfwU6H8iB3O9XWcpX810H4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=JY8pUCAAojovc sYVL0EyPx/ID9M=; b=xC/52TT2JyZ9zAZmzc+qne1AJuJtDj60zd9tXKxjiiLDo pNTmeMFqFHVPuxF84BVk1Qt49VsuyQGTM9ecPNCiF/rcWegCbmpXwFc3/4dBAcYP HlI5N1Uc2BWYBDSGxjPjZPSQLfUEMLFpfts0p1k3hR6KIPuumew8hn8K793Mak= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f53.google.com X-Received: by 10.70.25.132 with SMTP id c4mr15979105pdg.107.1410578486962; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:21:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <54137295.4070304@redhat.com> References: <5413271B DOT 1010109 AT t-online DOT de> <54134A83 DOT 80107 AT redhat DOT com> <54135451 DOT 3060902 AT t-online DOT de> <54137295 DOT 4070304 AT redhat DOT com> From: David Boyce Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:21:06 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cannot exec() program outside of /bin if PATH is unset To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/12/2014 02:15 PM, Christian Franke wrote: >>>> unsetenv("PATH"); >>> This is undefined behavior, per POSIX. POSIX recommends that you always >>> leave PATH defined to at least a bare minimum of the results of >>> confstr(_CS_PATH, ...); it also states that implementations are free to >>> do what they want (in this case, crash) if you don't follow the >>> recommendation: >>> >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap08.html >>> "If PATH is unset or is set to null, the path search is >>> implementation-defined." >> >> There is no POSIX PATH search needed in my testcase: >> execl("/usr/sbin/alternatives", ...) > > PATH may not be needed for execl() to find the binary it will be > executing, but it IS required to be set in the environment to the bare > minimum of confstr(_CS_PATH) for that binary to have a chance of > executing in a well-defined setup. Eric, I think your interpretation is wrong. The line you quote from POSIX refers to a "path search" but there is no path search happening here. The concept of path search is implicitly defined by the first line in your citation: "PATH: This variable shall represent the sequence of path prefixes that certain functions and utilities apply in searching for an executable file known only by a filename." Notice the way this sentence ends. The argument to execl() is a full path, not "only a filename", thus no PATH search is involved. I agree that unsetting PATH is not ideal practice but I think it's perfectly well defined by POSIX. David -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple