Re: REGRESSION: shellshock patch rejects valid function names

[Ángel González]

Eric Blake wrote:
> At any rate, this seems like an inadvertent regression that could be
> patched; are you willing to propose such a patch?  The gist of the
> matter is that the code base must use the same decision on what forms a
> valid function name as it does in deciding what exported non-variable
> names in the environment can be reinstated as functions.  I'm fairly
> certain that Chet will be reasonable about this, and after the worst
> fires are put out, we can revisit this.


The patch seems straightforward:

diff --git a/variables.c b/variables.c
index 92a5a10..6552e69 100644
--- a/variables.c
+++ b/variables.c
@@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ initialize_shell_variables (env, privmode)
          /* Don't import function names that are invalid identifiers from the
             environment, though we still allow them to be defined as shell
             variables. */
-         if (legal_identifier (name))
+         if (check_identifier (name))
            parse_and_execute (temp_string, name, 
SEVAL_NONINT|SEVAL_NOHIST|SEVAL_FUNCDEF|SEVAL_ONECMD);
 
          if (temp_var = find_function (name))