On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 08:29:48AM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > Is [#! taking a relative interpreter path] intentional? > > > What's more, the relative interpreter filename is taken relative to > > the current directory, not relative to the script directory. > > That's exactly what I'd expect, and what I'd say should happen: it's > consistent with ~every other use of relative pathnames. > > > There's probably some logic to this but it seems bug-prone and I > > can't think of a legitimate use for it. > > I can't offhand either, but I also don't see any real risk from it, and > am very far from certain there is no clever use for it.
There is a slight risk if you have untrustworthy users and you run one of these things (perhaps by accident) while in /tmp. However, it would be substantially more useful if relative paths were interpreted relative to the location of the script file. I would have to look in the exec code to be sure, but I don't think that would be hard to arrange. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
