This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paul_Koning at dell dot com, simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com, sergiodj at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:19:16 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1437761993-18758-1-git-send-email-sergiodj at redhat dot com> <55B2850D dot 6030306 at ericsson dot com> <87k2tp5q3g dot fsf at redhat dot com> <838ua52wmp dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87fv4d5p8l dot fsf at redhat dot com> <837fpp2uz5 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <94F6A309-A197-4A71-BEB9-42E009DD1EB5 at dell dot com> <55B2A24B dot 8000209 at ericsson dot com> <6E0AD60C-689F-4958-964D-FD560FE77C06 at dell dot com> <CACTLOFrhFh14mmtMsuj=m-yHET5VZzAH9E1oNBars0wrmUS4zA at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:36:38 -0700
> From: Matt Rice <ratmice@gmail.com>
> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:42 PM, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 24, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> 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? Thatâs not a good failure mode. It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you donât 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.