Re: Bash security issue

[Linda Walsh]

Eric Blake wrote:

> They are not portable to broken bash.  But the argument in these threads
> is that bash's implementation of function exports should be changed so
> that _fixed_ bash will once again be POSIX compliant and let this
> bog-standard assignment work regardless of contents.  If Chet accepts
> Florian's patch [1] to change function exports to use BASH_FUNC_foo()=
> instead of foo= (which is what Red Hat is already using in their fixes
> pushed today), then this POSIX compliance bug in broken bash will be
> avoided.
>
> [1] http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/09/25/13
----
IS this added only in memory? I.e. no changes to source code?

What prevents BASH_FUNC_foo = '(){ :; ...';

Why is there a need for a long prefix on top of switching
the ()/= order?