From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Aug  8 15:50:54 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA20029
          for questions-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA20019;
          Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199708082250.PAA20019@hub.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Root's Shell--Anything?
To: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970808145906.20518A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> from "Annelise Anderson" at Aug 8, 97 03:06:37 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Annelise Anderson wrote:
> 
> Some recent postings have suggested that root's shell can be
> anything--i.e., not limited to csh or sh.
> 
> As I remember I once tried to change root's shell to tcsh and got
> into a lot of trouble--enough so that I'm reluctant to experiment.
> 
> I thought if root's shell, to run, required access to /usr, this
> could be a problem if only / were mounted.

	yes, exactly.  
	root's shell must be available to the system at all times.
	so you can boot single-user, so init can plop you into a 
	shell if there is a startup problem.

	and root's shell should be statically linked
	to prevent all the security problems of dynamic linking.

> 
> With su -m, of course, root gets the shell of the user as part of
> the environment, so a change should not really be necessary.
> 
> Clarification would be appreciated.