In this case, going from what the execve(2) Linux man page says (and Mac
seems to agree), if the script were executable it would have a '#!'
interpreter string and the kernel would execute it anyway, would it not?
What case would be solved by explicitly starting a shell?
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:15 PM Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> If the argument is not an .exe, then it may be a command shell script
> (.sh, etc.)
> Only the system knows it is not an exe (errno == ENOEXEC), so it then
> passes it as
> the first argument to /bin/sh that will handle the shell files.
>
> And yes, count me as a Reviewer and reviewed.
>
> Roger
>
> On 06/04/2019 12:14 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:09 PM Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> Then I ran an strace over it and saw this:
>
> 5332 [pid 3911] execve("./sleep2", ["./sleep2"], [/* 78 vars */]
> <unfinished ...>
> ..
> 5342 [pid 3911] <... execve resumed> ) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format
> error)
> 5343 [pid 3911] execve("/bin/sh", ["/bin/sh", "./sleep2"], [/* 78 vars
> */] <unfinished ...>
> 5347 [pid 3911] <... execve resumed> ) = 0
>
> So, if the first exec fails for whatever reason, we try again, passing the
> executable file name as argument to the system shell. This does not feel
> right? Do you know why we do this?
>
>
>>
>> Thanks, Roger
>>
>>
> Thank you Roger. Can I consider the patch to be reviewed by you?
>
> ..Thomas
>
>
>
--
- DML
