Sponsored Content
Top Forums Shell Programming and Scripting Switching shells in UNIX Scripts Post 88987 by Scoobiez on Thursday 10th of November 2005 11:35:39 AM
Old 11-10-2005
Thanks for the tip.
Reason for going to Bash is because if I don't I get errors using
wildcard (*) with the gzip command...not sure why...
 

10 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Good Unix Shells ?

Hey Guys i am new to Unix and i have downlaoded Cygwin for Windows and deleted it. I was just wondering is there any good shells like that for windows that just as good thanks for your time ][ce (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: IceCold
1 Replies

2. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

switching shells??

Hi How can i switch shells on linux and freebsd? i tried changing the passwd file and restarted the computer but i still get the same old shell. anybody has the answer? thanks (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: xNYx
6 Replies

3. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

How to open multiple shells while the scripts keeps running.

Hello, I've tried for a while now to run a bash script that continues to the end, while opening new shells as needed. I've tried xterm -e "somecommand"; & xterm -e " somecommand"; I've also tried screen -S "somecommand"; & screen -S "somecommand"; All without any luck, they... (5 Replies)
Discussion started by: Closed_Socket
5 Replies

4. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Unix Kernel Switching?

How do I go about switching from one Kernel to another? I figure the process is somewhat like "compile -> remove old boot reference -> add new boot reference -> reboot/restart kernel"... but honestly I have no idea how to do this... I'm trying to test out a piece of software, but it only runs... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: jjinno
3 Replies

5. Cybersecurity

Preventing switching shells

Hello, My firm has a requirement that everyone must use bash. Of course, there can be exceptions so I do not want to disable the other shells. But is there a way that I can prevent users from switching to another shell? Thank you. (5 Replies)
Discussion started by: danielf
5 Replies

6. Shell Programming and Scripting

Switching between shells

I don't know why, but it just isn't working how I want it to work. You might want to run it to see what I mean. Or you might be a genius (or just really good at unix) and know just by looking at it what the problem is. Have fun trying to figure this one out.:wall: (11 Replies)
Discussion started by: nowruzr
11 Replies

7. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

shells and scripts

So in UNIX, I understand that there are several different shells you can be in: C, Bourne, Bourne Again, Korn, etc. I also know that you can write scripts for the shells, by assigning it by #!/bin/csh, or sh, etc. If I am working in the csh, do I have to write the script for the csh? Or can it... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: bjstaff
1 Replies

8. Linux

Switching between Windows and UNIX

I have both UNIX and Windows on my system. While booting it asks for me to select an OS. Once I log in to an OS, then to log in to another OS, there is no direct method. I need to shutdown and again start to select another OS. May I know any method to directly switch between the two. (23 Replies)
Discussion started by: ravisingh
23 Replies

9. Programming

UNIX shells scripting

Can someone help by advising hw to built myself strong on logic building in UNIX shell scripting. I find it very difficult Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: Vijaykannan T
4 Replies

10. Shell Programming and Scripting

Switching from production to development envirornment in UNIX

I had a unix scripts in prod. I need to made changes in those scripts which I don't have the edit access. I need to move those scripts from prod to dev to edit. Please tell me how to switch from production to development, So that I can made changes in dev and again move those scripts to Prod. ... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: Rajeswararao
3 Replies
SCRIPT(7)					       BSD Miscellaneous Information Manual						 SCRIPT(7)

NAME
script -- interpreter script execution DESCRIPTION
The system is capable of treating a text file containing commands intended for an interpreter, such as sh(1) or awk(1), as an executable pro- gram. An ``interpreter script'' is a file which has been set executable (see chmod(2)) and which has a first line of the form: #! pathname [argument] The ``#!'' must appear as the first two characters of the file. A space between the ``#!'' and pathname is optional. At most one argument may follow pathname, and the length of the entire line is limited (see below). If such a file is executed (such as via the execve(2) system call), the interpreter specified by the pathname is executed by the system. (The pathname is executed without regard to the PATH variable, so in general pathname should be an absolute path.) The arguments passed to the interpreter will be as follows. argv[0] will be the path to the interpreter itself, as specified on the first line of the script. If there is an argument following pathname on the first line of the script, it will be passed as argv[1]. The subse- quent elements of argv will be the path to the interpreter script file itself (i.e. the original argv[0]) followed by any further arguments passed when execve(2) was invoked to execute the script file. By convention, it is expected that an interpreter will open the script file passed as an argument and process the commands within it. Typi- cal interpreters treat '#' as a comment character, and thus will ignore the initial line of the script because it begins ``#!'', but there is no requirement for this per se. On NetBSD, the length of the ``#!'' line, excluding the ``#!'' itself, is limited to PATH_MAX (as defined in <limits.h>). Other operating systems impose much smaller limits on the length of the ``#!'' line (see below). Note that the interpreter may not itself be an interpreter script. If pathname does not point to an executable binary, execution of the interpreter script will fail. Trampolines and Portable Scripts Different operating systems often have interpreters located in different locations, and the kernel executes the passed interpreter without regard to the setting of environment variables such as PATH. This makes it somewhat challenging to set the ``#!'' line of a script so that it will run identically on different systems. Since the env(1) utility executes a command passed to it on its command line, it is often used as a ``trampoline'' to render scripts porta- ble. If the leading line of a script reads #! /usr/bin/env interp then the env(1) command will execute the ``interp'' command it finds in its PATH, passing on to it all subsequent arguments with which it itself was called. Since /usr/bin/env is found on almost all POSIX style systems, this trick is frequently exploited by authors who need a script to execute without change on multiple systems. Historical Note: Scripts without ``#!'' Shell scripts predate the invention of the ``#!'' convention, which is implemented in the kernel. In the days of Version 7 AT&T UNIX, there was only one interpreter used on the system, /bin/sh, and the shell treated any file that failed to execute with an ENOEXEC error (see intro(2)) as a shell script. Most shells (such as sh(1)) and certain other facilities (including execlp(3) and execvp(3) but not other types of exec(3) calls) still pass interpreter scripts that do not include the ``#!'' (and thus fail to execute with ENOEXEC) to /bin/sh. As this behavior is implemented outside the kernel, there is no mechanism that forces it to be respected by all programs that execute other programs. It is thus not completely reliable. It is therefore important to always include #!/bin/sh in front of Bourne shell scripts, and to treat the traditional behavior as obsolete. EXAMPLES
Suppose that an executable binary exists in /bin/interp and that the file /tmp/script contains: #!/bin/interp -arg [...] and that /tmp/script is set mode 755. Executing $ /tmp/script one two three at the shell will result in /bin/interp being executed, receiving the following arguments in argv (numbered from 0): "/bin/interp", "-arg", "/tmp/script", "one", "two", "three" Portability Note: Multiple arguments The behavior of multiple arguments on the ``#!'' line is highly non-portable between different systems. In general, only one argument can be assumed to work consistently. Consider the following variation on the previous example. Suppose that an executable binary exists in /bin/interp and that the file /tmp/script contains: #!/bin/interp -x -y [...] and that /tmp/script is set mode 755. Executing $ /tmp/script one two three at the shell will result in /bin/interp being executed, receiving the following arguments in argv (numbered from 0): "/bin/interp", "-x -y", "/tmp/script", "one", "two", "three" Note that "-x -y" will be passed on NetBSD as a single argument. Although most POSIX style operating systems will pass only one argument, the behavior when multiple arguments are included is not consistent between platforms. Some, such as current releases of NetBSD, will concatenate multiple arguments into a single argument (as above), some will truncate them, and at least one will pass them as multiple arguments. The NetBSD behavior is common but not universal. Sun's Solaris would present the above argument as "-x", dropping the " -y" entirely. Per- haps uniquely, recent versions of Apple's OS X will actually pass multiple arguments properly, i.e.: "/bin/interp", "-x", "-y", "/tmp/script", "one", "two", "three" The behavior of the system in the face of multiple arguments is thus not currently standardized, should not be relied on, and may be changed in future releases. In general, pass at most one argument, and do not rely on multiple arguments being concatenated. SEE ALSO
awk(1), csh(1), ksh(1), sh(1), chmod(2), execve(2), intro(2), execlp(3), execvp(3), fd(4), options(4), setuid(7) STANDARDS
The behavior of interpreter scripts is obliquely referred to, but never actually described in, IEEE Std 1003.1-2004 (``POSIX.1''). The behavior is partially (but not completely) described in the System V Interface Definition, Fourth Edition (``SVID4''). Although it has never been formally standardized, the behavior described is largely portable across POSIX style systems, with two significant exceptions: the maximum length of the ``#!'' line, and the behavior if multiple arguments are passed. Please be aware that some operating systems limit the line to 32 or 64 characters, and that (as described above) the behavior in the face of multiple arguments is not consistent across systems. HISTORY
The behavior of the kernel when encountering scripts that start in ``#!'' was not present in Version 7 AT&T UNIX. A Usenet posting to net.unix by Guy Harris on October 16, 1984 claims that the idea for the ``#!'' behavior was first proposed by Dennis Ritchie but that the first implementation was on BSD. Historical manuals (specifically the exec man page) indicate that the behavior was present in 4BSD at least as early as April, 1981. Infor- mation on precisely when it was first implemented, and in which version of UNIX, is solicited. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
Numerous security problems are associated with setuid interpreter scripts. In addition to the fact that many interpreters (and scripts) are simply not designed to be robust in a setuid context, a race condition exists between the moment that the kernel examines the interpreter script file and the moment that the newly invoked interpreter opens the file itself. Because of these security issues, NetBSD does not allow setuid interpreter scripts by default. In order to turn on setuid interpreter scripts, options SETUIDSCRIPTS must be set in the configuration of the running kernel. Setting this option implies the FDSCRIPTS option, which causes the kernel to open the script file on behalf of the interpreter and pass it in argv as /dev/fd/[fdnum]. (See fd(4) for an explanation of the /dev/fd/[fdnum] devices.) This design avoids the race condition, at the cost of denying the interpreter the actual name of the script file. See options(4) for more information. However, the FDSCRIPTS mechanism is not a cure-all for security issues in setuid interpreters and scripts. Subtle techniques can be used to subvert even seemingly well written scripts. Scripts executed by Bourne type shells can be subverted in numerous ways, such as by setting the IFS variable before executing the script. Other interpreters possess their own vulnerabilities. Turning on SETUIDSCRIPTS is therefore very dangerous, and should not be done lightly if at all. BSD
May 6, 2005 BSD
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:10 AM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy