Re: [PATCH] Make sure GDB uses a valid shell when starting the inferior and to perform the "shell" command

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>]

On Saturday, July 25 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:29:56 -0400
>> 
>> My goal was not to match every possible invalid shell out there, nor to
>> make sure that the specified shell is a known and valid shell.  My goal
>> was to make sure that the shell exists, is an executable, and is not
>> something that is commonly used to disable logins (/sbin/nologin or
>> /bin/false are the obvious candidates here).
>> 
>> The 2 additional candidates that have been mentioned were actually just
>> 1: I did not remember to include /bin/false in the list before, but
>> /usr/sbin/nologin is nologin (and I could even just check for the
>> basename as you proposed in another message, eliminating the need to
>> include checks for {,/usr}).
>> 
>> I don't think we will see the list of non-shells expanding much more.
>> One can always say "Hey, but /bin/ls is a not a shell!", and we will say
>> "Right, and it is not commonly used as shell anyway".
>
> Just reading the section you proposed for the manual seems to imply
> the goals are much wider than you say above.  If we only want to avoid
> these 2 non-shells, why do we even need to document that obscure
> detail?

Because I think it is worth documenting this to the user; the more
information we give about how GDB behaves, the better (IMHO).

The new section says:

  @node Valid Shell
  @subsection Valid Shell

  @value{GDBN} considers a @emph{valid shell} a file that:

  @enumerate
  @item
  Exists and can be executed by the user.

  @item
  Is not the @file{/sbin/nologin} (or @file{/usr/sbin/nologin}) program.

  @item
  Is not the @file{/bin/false} program.
  @end enumerate

  If any of those conditions are not met, the specified shell is not
  used by @value{GDBN}.

I do not see any difference from what I said above, but if you think
this text can be improved, or that this text is not needed at all, then
by all means feel free to ask this.

>> Finally, I don't want to forbid the user to specify her own shell to run
>> the inferior, and to name her shell as she wants.
>
> Her shell could be named /sbin/nologin, no?

Yes...  I should have said:

  Finally, I don't want to forbid the user to specify her own shell to
  run the inferior, and to name her shell as she wants, as long as it is
  not named {,/usr}/sbin/nologin and /bin/false, and as long as it is an
  existing file, and as long as this file can be executed by her.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/