From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:59:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] run-command: Elaborate execvp error checking
Message-ID: <op.v8nwsnyv0aolir@keputer.lokaal>
In-Reply-To: <4F205212.5080007@kdbg.org>

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:03:46 +0100, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:

> Am 24.01.2012 23:32, schrieb Frans Klaver:
>> +static void inspect_failure(const char *argv0, int silent_exec_failure)
>> +{
>> +	int err = errno;
>> +	struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +
>> +	/* errors not related to path */
>> +	if (errno == E2BIG || errno == ENOMEM)
>> +		die_file_error(argv0, err);
>> +
>> +	if (strchr(argv0, '/')) {
>> +		if (file_exists(argv0)) {
>> +			strbuf_add(&sb, argv0, strlen(argv0));
>> +			inspect_file(&sb, err, argv0);
>
> Can we end up here if errno == ENOENT? If so, silent_exec_failure must
> be checked. (inspect_file does not return.)

Hm, good catch. Yes, we can if the interpreter isn't found. I never  
intended to actually leave the "interpreter not found" ENOENT case in it's  
current shape, so it probably slipped through. Will fix inspect_failure  
here to guarantee silent_exec_failure is heeded. Patch 5/5 would probably  
remove it again.

Thanks.