* Justin Wells said: > A static ash as root's shell might be the thing then, though we would But with static ash you lose all the goodies sash has built-in - and these are the reason why sash is such a great aide in misery. > have to wait until the bash-isms were eliminated to make it effective, > and between now and then possibly have a second root user with a static > shell. No, no. You are still making an assumption that all scripts are executed by the shell you are using - it's not the case. The linux kernel interprets the first line of the script and executes whatever interpreter is indicated there. It shan't be /bin/sash in most cases, but /bin/sh or even /bin/bash, /bin/csh, /bin/whatever. So, sash doesn't get to interpret the script, the shell which gets listed on top of the script is invoked to run the script. That's why a static ash would be a good thing. And, to make things efficient, the /bin/sh -> /bin/ash link would be made as a part of a single mode bootup process - probably as a part of the sash startup sequence - the internal ln command invoked from /root/.profile would do. Then, under normal circumstances, a bootup sequence checks whether there's a /bin/sh.single link (which is a saved link of what was before sash made /bin/sh point to /bin/static/ash) and restores the previous, SYSTEM DEFAULT shell. Does it sound reasonable? marek
Attachment:
pgpL1vkgakxkZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature