my website's backend is made with bash, it calls make for every request and it probably has hundreds of remote arbitrary code execution bugs that will get me pwned someday, it's great

edit: to clarify, it uses a rust program i made to expose the bash scripts as http endpoints, i'm not crazy enough to implement http in bash

it behaves like a static file server, but if a file has the others-execute permission bit set it executes the file instead of reading it

it's surprisingly nice for prototyping since you can just write a cli program and it's automatically available over http too

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

who hurt you?

[–] wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

i thought it was neat how php lets you write your website's logic with the same directory tree pattern that clients consume it from, but i didn't want to learn php so i made my own, worse version

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 36 points 1 year ago

I designed a chip architecture that runs bash code on silicon.

I reimplemented x86 assembly in purely bash script.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

Set -e, please for the love of god, set -e

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

you do realize that you can just use Apache instead of writing your own rust program for this, as this is more or less the CGI standard?

[–] wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know about the CGI standard, but mine does things a little differently (executable files don't just render pages but also handle logging, access control, etc. when put in special positions within a directory), so I still think it was worth the afternoon i spent making it.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, especially if you did this for practice.

Just saying, that apache, for big projects, is more battle-hardened. ;-)

[–] wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah definitely, Apache is way better for anything remotely serious.

[–] Belzebubulubu@mujico.org 1 points 1 year ago

lord forgive me for I have sinned.

[–] agilob@programming.dev 78 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Before nginx was a thing, I worked with a guy who forked apache httpd and wrote this blog in C, like, literally embedded html and css inside the server, so when he made a tpyo or was adding another post he had to recompile the source code. The performance was out of this world.

[–] Schmeckinger@feddit.de 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are a lot of solutions like that in rust. You basically compile the template into your code.

[–] vox@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

yeah, templates can be parsed at compile time but these frameworks are not embeeding whole fucking prerendered static pages/assets

[–] sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

They are nowadays. Compiling assets and static data into rust and deliver virtual DOM via websocket to the browser is the new cool kid in the corner.

Have a look at dioxus

[–] Schmeckinger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Compiling all assets into the binary is trivial in rust. When I have a small web server that generates everything in code I usually compile the favicon into the binary.

[–] bazsalanszky@lemmy.toldi.eu 12 points 1 year ago

This reminds me of one of my older projects. I wanted to learn more about network communications, so I started working on a simple P2P chat app. It wasn't anything fancy, but I really enjoyed working on it. One challenge I faced was that, at the time, I didn't know how to listen for user input while handling network communication simultaneously. So, after I had managed to get multiple TCP sockets working on one thread, I thought, why not open another socket for HTTP communication? That way, I could incorporate a fancy web UI instead of just a CLI interface.

So, I wrote a simple HTTP server, which, in hindsight, might not have been necessary.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, you met fefe.

[–] sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Fefe uses a LDAP server as backend, not Apache

[–] zaphod@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

He uses his own http server called gatling and an LDAP server instead of a database.

[–] justJanne@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

He also uses his own http server that in turn queries the ldap server solely for the articles. The rest is compiled into the http server binary.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just don't call it with #!/bin/sh. Because that's POSIX shell, not bash.

[–] philm@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

but effectively it's bash, I think /bin/sh is a symlink to bash on every system I know of...

Edit: I feel corrected, thanks for the information, all the systems I used, had a symlink to bash. Also it was not intended to recommend using bash functionality when having a shebang !#/bin/sh. As someone other pointed out, recommendation would be #!/usr/bin/env bash, or !#/bin/sh if you know that you're not using bash specific functionality.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Still don't do this. If you use bash specific syntax with this head, that's a bashism and causes issues with people using zsh for example. Or with Debian/*buntu, who use dash as init shell.

Just use #!/bin/bash or #!/usr/bin/env bash if you're funny.

[–] wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

#!/bin/bash doesn't work on NixOS since bash is in the nix store somewhere, #!/usr/bin/env bash resolves the correct location regardless of where bash is

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Are there any distos with /usr/bin/env in a different spot? I still believe that's the best approach for getting bash.

[–] MenacingPerson@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All posix-compliant distros need /usr/bin/env

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I do think a simple symlink is superior to a tool parsing stuff. A shame POSIX choose this approach.

Still the issue that a posix shell can be on a non-posix system and vice versa. And certificates versus used practice. Btw, isn't there only one posix certified Linux distro? Was it Suse?

[–] MenacingPerson@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Posix certification is dumb but posix compliance is nice to ensure some level of compatibility.

Symlinks would be pretty bad in the case of nixos. Wouldn't fit at all

[–] Nobsi@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

My own. I use arch btw

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] quantenzitrone@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

/bin/bash won't work on every system for example NixOS some other systems may have bash in /usr/bin or elsewhere

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

NixOS didn't do /usr merge?

[–] quantenzitrone@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Binaries are not in /usr/bin or /bin except for /bin/sh and /usr/bin/env. Programs should not assume fixed paths for binaries and instead look for them in $PATH.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

No no no no no, do not believe this you will shoot yourself in the foot.

https://wiki.debian.org/Shell

Beginning with DebianSqueeze, Debian uses Dash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink. Dash lacks many of the features one would expect in an interactive shell, making it faster and more memory efficient than Bash.

From DebianSqueeze to DebianBullseye, it was possible to select bash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink (by running dpkg-reconfigure dash). As of DebianBookworm, this is no longer supported.

[–] SurpriseWaterfall@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

It is a symlink, but bash will automatically enable posix compliance mode if you use it. So any bash specific features will bomb out unless you explicitly reset it in the script.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

macOS
Debian
Ubuntu

[–] callyral@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i thought most unix-like systems had it symlinked to a shell like dash. it's what i have on my system (void linux), of course not as an interactive shell lol

i use #!/bin/sh for posix scripts and #!/usr/bin/env bash for bash scripts. #!/bin/sh works for posix scripts since even if it's symlinked to bash, bash still supports posix features.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

All you need are Bash scripts with chroot and cgroups and some ssh access.

[–] Gargari@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

99% and maybe even 100%

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

The dude on the right is some neckbeard who yells "RTFM" and "i use Arch btw ;)" IRL.

[–] einfach_orangensaft@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

i feel this

[–] asw13c@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

wow

[–] asw13c@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago