On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > > On 21/08/08 08:25, Matt Wozniski wrote: > [...] >> In that vein, perhaps using the shell should be an option... but >> doubtless the best default behavior is to use system(3) for places >> like :! where shell expansion is good,and execlp() for those places >> where we decidedly don't want any shell expansion. Relying on uniform >> escaping required for /bin/sh is still not terribly easy, but it's a >> much less moving target than escaping for every possible shell... It >> just strikes me that vim's present use of the user's shell is >> inherently impossible to sanitize, and thus inherently insecure for at >> least the simplistic "file name has a command embedded" sort of >> attack... >> >> ~Matt > > From man 3 execlp > > [...] >> The exec() family of functions replaces the current process image >> with >> a new process image. [...] >> >> If any of the exec() functions returns, an error will have >> occurred. >> The return value is -1, and the global variable errno will be set >> to >> indicate the error. > [...] > > Are you sure that where we used to call the shell, you want to replace > the whole Vim process by something else unless an error occurs? > > > Best regards, > Tony.
Well, after a vfork(), of course! ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
