[OpenIndiana-discuss] Bash bug issue

[Bruce Lilly]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Jim Klimov <jimklimov at cos.ru> wrote:

> >On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> >>
> >> As of this late date, /usr/bin/bash here is in fact the bash
> >executable,
> >> not a link; but that means that it's 32-bit only and might well
> [...]
> So most of the programs (thousands of binaries supplied with a sol10
> distro and extension discs) remained 32-bit only. A minority of the
> lrograms that were deemed to really need this (under 700? or even 100?)
> were dual-built and provided with the isaexec hack to pick the right binary
> at run-time depending on the running kernel (32/64).


One more note applicable to bash before I start a separate thread regarding
32-bit vs. 64 bit issues that aren't bash-specific:

# ls /bin/amd64/*sh /*/bin/amd64/*sh /*/*/bin/amd64/*sh | egrep -v
"lish|ush|mash|rash|\.sh|ssh"
/bin/amd64/bash
/bin/amd64/ksh
/bin/amd64/rbash
/bin/amd64/rksh
/bin/amd64/tclsh
/bin/amd64/tcsh
/bin/amd64/wish
/bin/amd64/zoomsh
/usr/bin/amd64/bash
/usr/bin/amd64/ksh
/usr/bin/amd64/rbash
/usr/bin/amd64/rksh
/usr/bin/amd64/tclsh
/usr/bin/amd64/tcsh
/usr/bin/amd64/wish
/usr/bin/amd64/zoomsh
/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/bash


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/ksh


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/rbash


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/rksh


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/tclsh


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/tcsh


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/wish


/usr/openwin/bin/amd64/zoomsh


/usr/X/bin/amd64/bash


/usr/X/bin/amd64/ksh


/usr/X/bin/amd64/rbash


/usr/X/bin/amd64/rksh


/usr/X/bin/amd64/tclsh


/usr/X/bin/amd64/tcsh
/usr/X/bin/amd64/wish
/usr/X/bin/amd64/zoomsh
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/bash
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/ksh
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/rbash
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/rksh
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/tclsh
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/tcsh
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/wish
/usr/X11/bin/amd64/zoomsh
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/bash
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/ksh
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/rbash
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/rksh
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/tclsh
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/tcsh
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/wish
/usr/X11R6/bin/amd64/zoomsh

Evidently there are quite a few shells -- N.B. including bash -- where the
packagers seem to have decided there were issues warranting building and
packaging 64-bit versions.

I'll let somebody else figure out exactly why the recent updated version of
/usr/bin/bash trampled on the isaexec pointing to separate 32- and 64-bit
versions; I don't really care much about bash per se as I don't use it (for
reasons having to do with familiarity, usability, portability, and
reliability; before "shellshock" added security to that list).