From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115644 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2015 07:20:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 115631 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2015 07:20:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout28.012.net.il Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il (HELO mtaout28.012.net.il) (80.179.55.184) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:20:15 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NS10020087J7V00@mtaout28.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:19:26 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NS100KJE8CEJR90@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:19:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command In-reply-to: To: Matt Rice Cc: Paul_Koning@dell.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com, sergiodj@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83zj2k1z7v.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <1437761993-18758-1-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> <55B2850D.6030306@ericsson.com> <87k2tp5q3g.fsf@redhat.com> <838ua52wmp.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv4d5p8l.fsf@redhat.com> <837fpp2uz5.fsf@gnu.org> <94F6A309-A197-4A71-BEB9-42E009DD1EB5@dell.com> <55B2A24B.8000209@ericsson.com> <6E0AD60C-689F-4958-964D-FD560FE77C06@dell.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00741.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:36:38 -0700 > From: Matt Rice > Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, Eli Zaretskii , Sergio Durigan Junior , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:42 PM, wrote: > > > >> On Jul 24, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > >> > >> On 15-07-24 04:25 PM, Paul_Koning@Dell.com wrote: > >>> But if you omit a shell, is the user of that shell blocked from using gdb? That’s not a good failure mode. It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you don’t get the friendly error message. > >>> > >>> So that says the explicit list should be of non-shells. > >>> > >>> paul > >> > >> With Eli's suggestion, if SHELL is valid but gdb doesn't know about it (e.g. > >> SHELL=/my/super/duper/shell), it will fall back to using /bin/sh. So no, > >> the user wouldn't be blocked. > >> > >> > > Not unless the features in that unknown shell are needed for the application to function correctly. > > another case of this is shells which actively restrict the application to some > subset of available functionality They should be included in the list of the shells we know about.