Bug 35714 – /etc/profile incorrectly checks for executable bit

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 35714 - /etc/profile incorrectly checks for executable bit

Summary:	/etc/profile incorrectly checks for executable bit

Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	setup (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.0
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	low Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Bill Nottingham
QA Contact:	David Lawrence
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2001-04-11 18:07 EDT by Philip Rowlands
Modified:	2014-03-16 22:20 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2001-04-17 22:01:02 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Philip Rowlands 2001-04-11 18:07:18 EDT

/etc/profile contains the following lines:

for i in /etc/profile.d/*.sh ; do
        if [ -x $i ]; then
                . $i
        fi
done

The test should be for read (-r) rather than execute (-x), because
source'ing a file reads it.

While you're at it, could you also fix /etc/csh.cshrc to use "-r" for this
test?

Comment 1 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-04-17 17:44:42 EDT

That's not a bug, it's just an easy way to turn it off :)

Comment 2 Philip Rowlands 2001-04-17 22:00:57 EDT

I would respectfully suggest that there are other ways to turn it off without 
requiring this broken behaviour (e.g rename to *.sh.x).

It is a bug because it's no guard against the conditional action successfully 
reading the file (ditto for csh.cshrc). Being able to execve() a file is not 
the same as being able to open() it.

I'm not reporting this to be pedantic; I've seen RPMs packaged by people who 
thought that a script file which is sourced needs read permissions; no more.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2001-06-12 16:14:32 EDT

Will be fixed in 2.4.11-1; thanks!

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.