Dne 2.10.2014 v 08:33 Lennart Poettering napsal(a):
On Wed, 01.10.14 22:39, Rahul Sundaram (metherid@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Hi
Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell
in Fedora? Other distributions including Ubuntu and Debian (
https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/) have been using dash as the default shell
and Android uses mksh. While this appears to have been done primary to
increase bootup efficiency (which is not relevant with systemd), it might
help with security
Since the recent Shellshock aka Bashdoor vulnerability, there have been
some discussions about more distributions switching over (
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/614218/019d9a52b0eaae3d/) and I was wondering
whether it is worth considering for Fedora? FWIW, both dash and mksh is
already packaged in Fedora.
This sounds really wrong to me.
If you change /bin/sh to dash, then you'll have to map two shell
binaries into memory (since the login shell is going to stay on bash),
hence the resource usage grows. You increase the number of packages
When I look in my memory footprint where NetworkManager grabs 20M of RAM
and does nearly nothing whole day - it's funny to even hear dash would
consuming some significant memory resources.
I suggest to look at other places first if you really care about this.
On the other hand - usage of dash significantly speeds up compilation of
autoconf projects - it's pretty interesting to see the compilation with dash
is then maybe even 50% faster in non optimized builds (depends on how many
shells are forked during autoconf builds)
So you may have two shells in RAM - when dash is pretty minimalistic,
and you save tons CPU cycles and seconds on i.e. compile time (being
environment friendly :)
So while I don't care which shell is default - the argument about memory is
not worth to mentions....
Zdenek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
