On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 11:52:53AM +0100, David Hobach wrote:
> I never stated it is. It was just a general comment on code review and
> bash in specific - especially since I'm aware that Qubes has a lot of
> bash in sometimes security relevant places (qubes-dom0-update, qubes-rpc,
> ...).
ah,
On 2/13/22 10:05, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 01:03:35PM +0100, David Hobach wrote:
just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would expect from
this code to do:
[...]
At least on my amchine it executes "badCode" in both domU and dom0.
I might miss where you
Hi,
Le 2/13/22 à 10:05, Holger Levsen a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 01:03:35PM +0100, David Hobach wrote:
just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would expect from
this code to do:
[...]
At least on my amchine it executes "badCode" in both domU and dom0.
I might miss
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 01:03:35PM +0100, David Hobach wrote:
> just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would expect from
> this code to do:
[...]
> At least on my amchine it executes "badCode" in both domU and dom0.
I might miss where you stumbled upon this, but how is this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 05:31:04PM +0100, HW42 wrote:
> Brendan Hoar:
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:03 AM David Hobach wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would
> >> expect from this code
David Hobach:
[...]
> Btw I now believe that the {echo in the original example is considered
> a string and the second } closes the function.
Yes.
> I just don't understand why the case/esac can be used to remove the
> syntax error caused by the double } }. But oh well...
See my previous mail.
On 2/12/22 17:52, Brendan Hoar wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:31 AM HW42 wrote:
So this is probably not even a bug. Thanks for the nice example David
(apropos shell: set -e semantics are also "fun").
Simon
I’m going to guess (again, away from Linux terminal right now) that the
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:31 AM HW42 wrote:
> So this is probably not even a bug. Thanks for the nice example David
> (apropos shell: set -e semantics are also "fun").
>
> Simon
I’m going to guess (again, away from Linux terminal right now) that the
shellcheck command would probably flag
Brendan Hoar:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:03 AM David Hobach wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would
>> expect from this code to do:
>>
>> ```
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> function badCode {
>> echo "bad code executed"
>> }
>>
>> function testCode {
>>
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:03 AM David Hobach wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would expect
> from this code to do:
>
> ```
> #!/bin/bash
>
> function badCode {
> echo "bad code executed"
> }
>
> function testCode {
> #pick some existing file,
Dear all,
just stumbled across it and was wondering what a reviewer would expect from
this code to do:
```
#!/bin/bash
function badCode {
echo "bad code executed"
}
function testCode {
#pick some existing file, nonexisting works too though
echo "/etc/passwd"
}
function tfunc {
local foo=
11 matches
Mail list logo
