[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been UPDATED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: Approved Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-09-04 10:46 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001645 execvp( ) requirements on arg0 are too ... related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == -- (0006455) ajosey (manager) - 2023-09-04 10:46 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6455 -- Interpretation approved: 4 September 2023 Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 2023-04-19 17:26 eblake Relationship added related to 0001645 2023-07-31 16:06 geoffclare Note Added: 0006411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Interp Status--- => Pending 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2023-07-31 16:08 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2023-07-31 16:44 agadminInterp StatusPending => Proposed 2023-07-31 16:44 agadminNote Added: 0006414 2023-09-04 10:46 ajosey Interp StatusProposed => Approved 2023-09-04 10:46 ajosey Note Added: 0006455 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been UPDATED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: Proposed Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-07-31 16:44 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001645 execvp( ) requirements on arg0 are too ... related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == -- (0006414) agadmin (administrator) - 2023-07-31 16:44 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6414 -- Interpretation proposed: 31 July 2023 Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 2023-04-19 17:26 eblake Relationship added related to 0001645 2023-07-31 16:06 geoffclare Note Added: 0006411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Interp Status--- => Pending 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2023-07-31 16:08 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue8 2023-07-31 16:44 agadminInterp StatusPending => Proposed 2023-07-31 16:44 agadminNote Added: 0006414 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue NEEDS AN INTERPRETATION. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: Pending Final Accepted Text:https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-07-31 16:07 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001645 execvp( ) requirements on arg0 are too ... related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 2023-04-19 17:26 eblake Relationship added related to 0001645 2023-07-31 16:06 geoffclare Note Added: 0006411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Interp Status--- => Pending 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2023-07-31 16:07 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-07-31 16:06 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001645 execvp( ) requirements on arg0 are too ... related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == -- (0006411) geoffclare (manager) - 2023-07-31 16:06 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6411 -- Interpretation response The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: - None. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): --- Make the changes in the Desired Action, and also the changes in https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6264. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 2023-04-19 17:26 eblake Relationship added related to 0001645 2023-07-31 16:06 geoffclare Note Added: 0006411 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001645. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 17:26 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001645 execvp( ) requirements on arg0 are too ... related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 2023-04-19 17:26 eblake Relationship added related to 0001645 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001208. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 13:25 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 17:12 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == -- (0006265) eblake (manager) - 2023-04-19 17:12 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6265 -- Another option might be to define a new POSIX_SPAWN_XXX flag to posix_spawnattr_setflags() that gives finer-grained control over whether or not to attempt a fallback to sh, and whether or not to attempt exit status 126 instead of 127 on ENOEXEC failures (when the failure is only detected after a child process is created); but that would be more invention than existing practice. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 2023-04-19 17:12 eblake Note Added: 0006265 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001044. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 13:25 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001208 calling chdir as part of posix_spawn related to 0001044 Calling setsid as part of posix_spawn == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 17:05 eblake Relationship added related to 0001208 2023-04-19 17:06 eblake Relationship added related to 0001044 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been UPDATED. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 13:25 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Edited: 0006264 2023-04-19 13:25 eblake Description Updated ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 12:36 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == -- (0006264) eblake (manager) - 2023-04-19 12:36 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674#c6264 -- While we're touching this, it may be worth acknowledging that the XRAT example is not robust (among other things, it mishandles file names containing things like '*', and can easily overwrite past the bounds of an array when passed a long filename). At page 3695 line 126556 (XRAT B.3.3), change:The effective behavior of a successful invocation of posix_spawn( ) is as if the operation were implemented with POSIX operations as follows:to:The example below demonstrates an initial approach to implementing posix_spawn( ) using other POSIX operations, although an actual implementation will need to be more robust at handling all possible file names. Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated 2023-04-19 12:36 eblake Note Added: 0006264 ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been UPDATED. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 12:16 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? == Issue History Date ModifiedUsername FieldChange == 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake New Issue 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Name => Eric Blake 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Organization => Red Hat 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake User Reference=> ebb.posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Section => XSH posix_spawnp 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Page Number => 1455 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Line Number => 48328 2023-04-19 02:35 eblake Interp Status => --- 2023-04-19 12:16 eblake Description Updated ==
[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001674]: may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC?
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674 == Reported By:eblake Assigned To: == Project:1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1674 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Omission Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User Reference: ebb.posix_spawnp Section:XSH posix_spawnp Page Number:1455 Line Number:48328 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: == Date Submitted: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC Last Modified: 2023-04-19 02:35 UTC == Summary:may posix_spawnp() fail with ENOEXEC? Description: I'm raising this based on a thread on the Cygwin mailing list: https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2023-April/253495.html The standard is clear that while execl(), execle(), execv(), execve(), and fexecve() can fail with ENOEXEC, execlp() and execvp() must instead fall back to an invocation of 'sh' (see page 784 line 26548, and page 788 line 26744). However, when it comes to posix_spawn() and posix_spawnp(), the standard is silent as to whether a fallback to 'sh' must be attempted. At a first glance, one might assume that similarity in naming to the exec counterparts means that posix_spawn() matches execv() (no PATH search attempted, no sh fallback), and posix_spawnp() matches execvp() (utilize PATH search, attempt sh fallback). However, behavior differs between platforms (some fall back to sh for both spawn variants, Cygwin only for posix_spawnp, and glibc has refused the fallback for any file not starting with #! since 2.15 on Linux (patched in 2011, https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=d96de963), and since 2.33 on Hurd (patched in 2020, https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=13adfa34; musl also does not fall back on either function but also doesn't fall back to sh on execvp() so it is not a factor here). But a more precise read of the current wording does not actually require what should happen on ENOEXEC - page 1452 line 48229 describes the PATH search aspect of posix_spawnp(), but has no mention of a fallback to sh; and page 1455 line 48329 states that posix_spawn[p]() may fail for the same reasons as one of the exec family without specifying any particular mapping between the 2 spawn functions and the 7 exec functions that is, I could come up with a weirdnix where posix_spawn() uses execvp() with a filename containing '/' (no PATH search but does get a fallback to sh), while posix_spawnp() implements its own PATH search to open an fd and use fexecve() which can see ENOEXEC, and that would still be compliant given the current ambiguous wording). More to the point, the non-normative XRAT B.3.3 starting on page 3594 line 126541 gives a sample implementation of posix_spawn() (but not posix_spawnp()) that uses execve() (line 126790) and therefore can fail with ENOEXEC in the child process but has exit status 127 (confusing, since everywhere else in the standard we try to turn ENOEXEC into exit status 126 - but consistent with the current requirements on posix_spawn). Furthermore, the standard is clear that posix_spawn[p] can utilize a different operating system hook than the exec family; where it may be impractical to even attempt a fallback to sh (although the standard shows an implementation using fork/exec where the child process could still attempt a second execvl() after the ENOEXEC failure, the intent was that there may be some other system-specific mechanism for creating a child process that does NOT have any way of doing a second attempt short of reapplying the full set of file actions in the parent process). Additionally, on systems with setuid binaries, application writers PREFER to use posix_spawn*() over exec*() to have more control over starting a child process with known characteristics. If a setuid binary can end up trying to invoke a child process on something that would give an ENOEXEC error, and blindly attempts to hand that to 'sh', but it is not a valid shell script, this could easily be exploited as a security hole when sh starts executing random data as a shell script (which is the rationale glibc gave for disabling the fallback to sh for non-#! files on both spawn variants). Of course, this standard doesn't specify #! behavior; that's implementation-defined (and on Linux, starting a file
