Here is an example of Bash's process substitution:
zjhui#ubuntu:~/Desktop$ echo >(ls)
/dev/fd/63
zjhui#ubuntu:~/Desktop$ abs-guide.pdf
Then I get a cursor waiting for a command.
/dev/fd/63 doesn't exist. I think what happens is:
Output the filename used in /dev/fd
Execute the ls in >(ls)
Is this right? Why is there a cursor waiting for input?
When you execute echo >(ls), bash replaces this with echo /dev/fd/63 and runs ls with /dev/fd/63 connected to its standard input. echo does not use its arguments as file names, and ls does not use standard input. Bash will write your standard prompt but the output of ls comes after it. You can type in any Bash command there, you just lost the visual cue from the prompt, which is further up the screen.
echo >(ls) is not something that is likely to ever be useful.
Related
i am writing a shell script practice.sh. I want to give my first argument $1 from command line to ls command in script.e.g
if I run my script in terminal $bash practice.sh *.mp3
the argument *.mp3
I want to use for ls command
#!/bin/bash
output=$ls $1
it doesn't work
any help?
The obvious answer for what you say you want is just
#!/bin/bash
ls "$1"
which will run ls, passing it (just) the first argument to the script.
However, you also say you want to run this like: practice.sh *.mp3 which runs the script with many arguments (not just one) -- the *.mp3 will be expanded to be all the of the .mp3 files in the current directory. For that, you likely want something more like
#!/bin/bash
ls "$#"
which will pass all of the arguments to your script (however many there are) to the ls command.
These scripts will just run ls with its stdout connected to whatever your script has its stdout connceted to, so the output will (likely) just appear on your terminal. If you instead want to capture the output of the ls command (so you can do something else with it), you need something like
#!/bin/bash
output=$(ls "$#")
which will run ls with all the arguments, and capture the output in the variable $output. You can then do things with that variable.
Use shell expansion to record the output of the command in the variable output:
output=$(ls $1)
This will record the output of the command ls $1 in the variable output.
You can then use echo $output to print out your output.
You can read more about shell expansion in the GNU Bash reference manual.
My intent was to have all the output of my bash script displayed on the console and logged to a file.
Here is my script that works as expected.
#!/bin/bash
LOG_FILE="test_log.log"
touch $LOG_FILE
# output to console and to logfile
exec > >(tee $LOG_FILE) 2>&1
echo "Starting command ls"
ls -al
echo "End of script"
However I do not understand why it works that way.
I expected to have exec >>(tee $LOG_FILE) 2>&1 work but it fails although exec >>$LOG_FILE 2>&1 indeed works.
I could not find the reason for the construction exec > >(command ) in the bash manual nor in advanced bash scripting. Can you explain the logic behind it ?
The >(tee $LOG_FILE) is an example of Process substitution, you might wish to search for that. Advanced Shell Scriptng and Bash manual
Using the syntax, <(program) for capturing output and >(program) for feeding input, we can pass data just one record at a time. It is more powerful than command substitution (backticks, or $( )) because it substitutes for a filename, not text. Therefore anywhere a file is normally specified we can substitute a program's standard output or input (although process substitution on input is not all that common).
This is particularly useful where a program does not use standard streams for what you want.
Note that in your example you are missing a space, exec >>(tee $LOG_FILE) 2>&1 is wrong (you will get a syntax error). Rather,
exec > >(tee $LOG_FILE) 2>&1
is correct, that space is critical.
So, the exec > part changes file descriptor 1 (the default), also known as stdout or standard output, to refer to "whatever comes next", in this case it is the process substitution, although normally it would be a filename.
2>&1 redirects file descriptor 2 (stderr or standard error) to refer to the same place as file descriptor 1 (stdout or standard out). Important: if you omit the & you end-up with a file called 1 rather than successful redirection.
Once you have called the exec line above, then you have changed the current process's standard output, so output from the commands which follow go to that tee process instead of to regular stdout.
I have a command command that takes an input file as argument. Is there a way to call command without actually creating a file?
I would like to achieve the following behavior
$ echo "content" > tempfile
$ command tempfile
$ rm tempfile
if possible:
as a one-liner,
without creating a file,
using either a bash (or sh) feature or a "well-known" command (as standard as xargs)
It feels like there must be an easy way to do it but I can't find it.
Just use a process substitution.
command <(echo "content")
Bash will create a FIFO or other type of temporary file in /dev for the standard output of whatever happens in the process. For example:
$ echo <(echo hi)
/dev/fd/63
I'm having problems understanding what's going on in the following situation. I'm not familiar with UNIX pipes and UNIX at all but have read documentation and still can't understand this behaviour.
./shellcode is an executable that successfully opens a shell:
seclab$ ./shellcode
$ exit
seclab$
Now imagine that I need to pass data to ./shellcode via stdin, because this reads some string from the console and then prints "hello " plus that string. I do it in the following way (using a pipe) and the read and write works:
seclab$ printf "world" | ./shellcode
seclab$ hello world
seclab$
However, a new shell is not opened (or at least I can't see it and iteract with it), and if I run exit I'm out of the system, so I'm not in a new shell.
Can someone give some advice on how to solve this? I need to use printf because I need to input binary data to the second process and I can do it like this: printf "\x01\x02..."
When you use a pipe, you are telling Unix that the output of the command before the pipe should be used as the input to the command after the pipe. This replaces the default output (screen) and default input (keyboard). Your shellcode command doesn't really know or care where its input is coming from. It just reads the input until it reaches the EOF (end of file).
Try running shellcode and pressing Control-D. That will also exit the shell, because Control-D sends an EOF (your shell might be configured to say "type exit to quit", but it's still responding to the EOF).
There are two solutions you can use:
Solution 1:
Have shellcode accept command-line arguments:
#!/bin/sh
echo "Arguments: $*"
exec sh
Running:
outer$ ./shellcode foo
Arguments: foo
$ echo "inner shell"
inner shell
$ exit
outer$
To feed the argument in from another program, instead of using a pipe, you could:
$ ./shellcode `echo "something"`
This is probably the best approach, unless you need to pass in multi-line data. In that case, you may want to pass in a filename on the command line and read it that way.
Solution 2:
Have shellcode explicitly redirect its input from the terminal after it's processed your piped input:
#!/bin/sh
while read input; do
echo "Input: $input"
done
exec sh </dev/tty
Running:
outer$ echo "something" | ./shellcode
Input: something
$ echo "inner shell"
inner shell
$ exit
outer$
If you see an error like this after exiting the inner shell:
sh: 1: Cannot set tty process group (No such process)
Then try changing the last line to:
exec bash -i </dev/tty
The standard way to capture command output in Bourne shell is to use the $() syntax:
output=$(mycommand)
For commands that have a lot of output, however, this requires the shell allocate memory for the whole thing as one long string. I'd prefer to find something that does the moral equivalent of the Unix C function popen, to get a new file descriptor I could read from:
newfd=popen(mycommand)
while read -u $newfd LINE; do
#process output
done
Is this even possible?
#!bash
ls | while read X
do
echo $X is a directory entry
done
Replace 'ls' with the command of your choice