Dangers of using a non-base shell
bv at wjv.com
Fri Nov 9 05:07:01 PST 2007
"Ang utong ko ay sasabog sa sarap!" exclaimed
freebsd-questions-request at freebsd.org while reading this message
on Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:00 and then responded with:
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:42:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: Darren Henderson <darren at nighttide.net>
> Subject: Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Roland Smith wrote:
> > But if you're starting in single user mode, only / will be
> > mounted. So if you have /usr or /usr/local on a separate
> > partition, you'd be screwed.
> > That is why root should only use a shell that's in the / partition.
And since you control the machine that should be easy to do. Put
the programs YOU need in a directory on / - even if those are
elsewhere in the standard distribution. Yoy may find that you
want something that is not there normally. Probably a rare
occurance but you won't break anything - particularly if you 'cp'
it and not move 'mv' it.
> You'll be prompted for a shell if your default isn't available.
> I've used bash for the root shell for years. Doesn't mean that
> you will never have a problem but this paticular situation
> just means you'll have to hit enter to accept /bin/sh or enter
> another shell when booting into single user.
I've been using ksh [not the pd verison but the REAL Korn Shell]
for years - even on all the commercial Unix systems I used to
But on FreeBSD I always copy it to /bin/ksh [dropping the 93
extension in the default install] and being of the belt &
suspendors mentality I ALWAYS compile it statically - and just
checking /bin I find only pgrep and pkill NOT statically linked.
Old habits die hard but I surely won't be bitten by a corrupt
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
More information about the freebsd-questions