From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 10 11:32:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3352E16A41C for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:32:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wartan.hachaturow@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40F143D4C for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:32:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wartan.hachaturow@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so340923wra for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:32:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=b9/3n5XT/tN5khKtsn4KyKn8WzcHyD3RhwhVXS94connl1K5ULm4DXflTDLQvtiAGSG/KTRY/es7Ci/iJzG79/nHiZGQreqdEINB8yZ+94TNiqqimyEF3o/r0+0d8O5HNitSCUmGsvCeBpppRW//0oNNBshPmCZWdPvn8o2fG4w= Received: by 10.54.116.20 with SMTP id o20mr911690wrc; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.102.12 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4aaa2e1c0506100432117ea3b8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:32:27 +0400 From: Wartan Hachaturow To: Garance A Drosihn In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Change the executing of a 0-byte file to be an error... X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Wartan Hachaturow List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:32:29 -0000 On 6/10/05, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > error? I read through a few likely pages in SUSv3, and it looked > like the behavior for executing an 0-byte file is not explicitly > defined. Of course, it might be that I was simply looking in the > wrong part of the standard. To quote SUSv3's Shell and Utilities: "If the execve() function fails due to an error equivalent to the [ENOEXEC] error defined in the System Interfaces volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, the shell shall execute a command equivalent to having a shell invoked with the command name as its first operand, with any remaining arguments passed to the new shell. If the executable file is not a text file, the shell may bypass this command execution. In this case, it shall write an error message, and shall return an exit status of 126." So it is merely an empty script execution. The kernel reports a failure, as= it should. --=20 Regards, Wartan.