Re: [Proposal] Why not add a "shell" procedure?

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Nala,

Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> writes:
> (define %current-shell (getenv "SHELL"))
> (use-modules (ice-9 popen) (rnrs io ports))
> (define shell
>    (lambda (cmd)
>        (let ((str (string-append %current-shell " -c " cmd)))
>           (get-string-all (open-pipe str OPEN_READ)))))

(open-pipe <STRING> ...) already does '/bin/sh -c <STRING>', so (shell
<STRING>) does '/bin/sh -c "<SHELL> -c <STRING>"', i.e. it launches a
shell within a shell.  This is wasteful, and might also exacerbate
problems when shell metacharacters are present in <STRING> or <SHELL>.

Therefore, better do (open-pipe* OPEN_READ %current-shell "-c" cmd)
instead.

Also, I recommend making '%current-shell' a fluid, and perhaps adding a
keyword argument to 'shell' to specify the shell directly, so that
'%current-shell' is only used as the default for the keyword argument.

Note that although it is convenient to pass strings directly to the
shell, it is fraught with security risks due to the complexity of
escaping shell metacharacters properly, especially given the diversity
of shells and shell configurations.  Therefore, it is better not to
encourage this way of doing things.  It is generally better to use
'open-pipe*' or 'system*' directly, to avoid the shell entirely.

     Thanks,
       Mark