Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> skribis: > On 1/13/16 8:52 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> skribis: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:25:03AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> The ???READ_SAMPLE_BUF??? macro in execute_cmd.c reads at most 80 bytes >>>> from >>>> the hash-bang line. This is less than the already-small 128-byte limit >>>> in the Linux kernel¹ and can quite easily be hit². >>> >>> That's actually much bigger than one expects for shebang handling on >>> any traditional Unix system. >> >> Sure, but the fact that it’s smaller than that of the kernel Linux is >> problematic: when a hash-bang line > 127 chars is encountered, ‘execve’ >> fails with ENOENT, so Bash’s fallback code is executed, fails as well, > > No. Since the execve fails with ENOENT, bash just prints an error > message.
Right, sorry for the confusion. >> but it prints a misleading error message with an even more truncated >> hash-bang line. > > Again, it's only a cosmetic issue. I don't have a problem with increasing > the buffer size, but let's not pretend it's anything but that. Exactly. I was talking about the “bad interpreter” error message specifically. Ludo’.
