From: "A. Wik (awik32@gmail.com) [via djgpp@delorie.com]" <djgpp@delorie.com> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 18:06:05 +0000
What can I do about DJGPP-symlinks getting accidentally executed (eg.
by COMMAND.COM) as binary executables because they have .exe or .com extensions? It can easily hang the machine.
From: "A. Wik (awik32@gmail.com) [via djgpp@delorie.com]" <djgpp@delorie.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 18:06:05 +0000
What can I do about DJGPP-symlinks getting accidentally executed (eg.
by COMMAND.COM) as binary executables because they have .exe or .com extensions? It can easily hang the machine.
Don't create symlinks with those extensions?
DJGPP already has an alternative mechanism for "links" to its
executables (via 'stubedit'), which avoids this problem. Would it
solve the problem to use that alternative for links to executables?
From: "A. Wik (awik32@gmail.com) [via djgpp@delorie.com]" <djgpp@delorie.com> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:01:13 +0000
What can I do about DJGPP-symlinks getting accidentally executed (eg.
by COMMAND.COM) as binary executables because they have .exe or .com extensions? It can easily hang the machine.
Don't create symlinks with those extensions?
I don't do it deliberately. They are created by eg. "make install".
DJGPP already has an alternative mechanism for "links" to its
executables (via 'stubedit'), which avoids this problem. Would it
solve the problem to use that alternative for links to executables?
Partially. But then "ls" won't list them as links, right?
From: "A. Wik (awik32@gmail.com) [via djgpp@delorie.com]" <djgpp@delorie.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:01:13 +0000
What can I do about DJGPP-symlinks getting accidentally executed (eg. by COMMAND.COM) as binary executables because they have .exe or .com extensions? It can easily hang the machine.
Don't create symlinks with those extensions?
I don't do it deliberately. They are created by eg. "make install".
I guess some porting is required of those Makefiles.
DJGPP already has an alternative mechanism for "links" to its
executables (via 'stubedit'), which avoids this problem. Would it
solve the problem to use that alternative for links to executables?
Partially. But then "ls" won't list them as links, right?
It won't, correct.
Symlinks have been introduced 40 years ago. Today it is hard to live without them. I guess that always using bash is a good idea on DOS.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 428 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 110:44:12 |
Calls: | 9,053 |
Files: | 13,395 |
Messages: | 6,016,118 |