Re: Healing the bash fork

[gremlin () gremlin ru]

On 29-Sep-2014 22:34:20 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:

> > What is the motivation to not store executable code (functions)
> > differently from standard variables?

> What would you use for such a store, considering the environment
> is the only portable way to pass this information from one process
> to another in the general case, and support the current set of
> use cases?

C.O. to the rescue: temporary file.

If one shell instance needs to pass some functions to another, it
could dump those functions to a temporary file and pass the --load
(or, better, --load-functions) options with a filename parameter.

The functions file name may also be passed through environment, but
that could open another set of security holes (like reading files).


-- 
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru>
GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net