On Apr 18 21:39, Eric Blake via Cygwin wrote: > 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).
Thank you! 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
