About script execution permissions on Linux shell - linux

I've just created a script, let's say, "helloworld.sh".
The script doesn't yet have execution permissons: -rw-rw-r--
If I try to execute that script with: "./helloword.sh", I'll get an error message, as expected. But, if I try to execute that same script as: . helloword, it will execute with no problems.
How? Why does that happen?

This happens because on Linux the "." (dot) alone is a built-in command that execute the script within your current session with your current shell. This is the same as calling the script with source command (the BSD default method). It's almost the same than execute with bash helloworld.sh.
When you call the script with ./helloworld.sh or /root/helloworld.sh the shell will try to figure out how to execute it, if the file is a binary, it will simply run, if it is a script, the shell will read the first line looking for the interpreter. To do this, you'll need execution permission.
To simplify:
One is a command;
The other one is a path.
You can even run:
. --help
About . against bash:
This is why we use . or source to load variables from a file in our session, for example, when we change ~/.bashrc and reload it without login again.
You can see this happens when you execute:
. /etc/os-release
All variables defined inside this file will be loaded and available in your current shell session.
The same will not happen if you execute:
bash /etc/os-release
Because you opened a "new session" inside that bash that you called, the new bash executes and close, cleaning the session.
The same process happen if you give execute permission +x to the script, because when you call the script with ./ or something like that, a new session will be created too.

Related

linux "enable -n xxx" command works in terminal but not when put into a script

I've found a very strange issue, when in linux terminal I type "enable -n trap", it would disable the trap linux builtin command. But if I put it into a script like
#!/bin/bash
enable -n trap
and then run the script, there's no error but the command is also not disabled. Really appreciate if someone could share what is happening and how to run it in some file instead of directly in the terminal. Thank you!
The enable command only affects the current shell. When you run a script, that script is executed in a new process, so:
A new shell starts
The enable command runs and disables the trap command in that shell
The shell exits
If you want to affect the current shell, your only option is to source the script using the . (or source) command. If the script is named disable-trap.sh and is in your $PATH, you can run:
. disable-trap.sh
You can also provide a full path to the script:
. /path/to/disable-trap.sh
Sourcing a script like this is largely equivalent to typing the same commands in at the command line: it executes the instructions in the script in the current shell, rather than spawning a new process.

shell script run when I am root but I get a permission denied when it is invoked from a Makefile (still as root)

I need to run a Make script that invokes a shell script.
I can run the shell script directly as root but when running make on the makefile (still as root) make is denied permission to run the same shell script?
The offending line in the Makefile is that one:
PLATFORM=$(shell $(ROOT)/systype.sh)
I could go in and hardcode the value of every PLATFORM variable of every Makefile scrip on the system but that would be pointless fix, I'd like to understand why there is that Permission Denied error:
make[1]: execvp: ../systype.sh: Permission denied
PS: The content of the shell script is not the issue even if the shell script only contain ls or echo linux the Permission is Denied to the Make utility to run the shell script.
PS: I am not a make expert by an mean so if the explanation is related to Make please be as specific as you can.
In your comments above you say when you "run it manually" you use . scriptname.sh, is that correct? You use . followed by scriptname.sh?
That does not run the script, that sources the script. Your statement that scriptname.sh will execute with and without the x permission since it is a shell script is wrong. You can source the script if you have read permissions. But you cannot execute the script unless you have execute permissions.
"Sourcing" means that a new shell is not started: instead your current shell (where you type that command) reads the contents of the script and runs them just as if you'd typed them in by hand, in the current shell. At the end all the side-effects (directory changes, variable assignments, etc.) that were performed in that script are still available in your current script.
"Executing" means that the script is treated like a program, but the program is a new shell that's started, which then reads the contents of the script and executes it. Once the script ends the shell exits and all side-effects are lost.
The $(shell ...) function in make will not source your script (unless you also use . there, which you did not). It will try to run your script. The error you show implies that either systype.sh did not have the execution bit set, or else that it had an invalid #! line. There's no other explanation I can think of.
If sourcing the file really does what you want then why not just use the same method in $(shell ...) that you use in your own personal use:
PLATFORM=$(shell . $(ROOT)/systype.sh)
If changing the user permission didn't work, are you sure that whatever user owns the script is the same user you're using to invoke make? You say you're "running as root"; is the script owned by root? Or is it owned by you and you're running sudo make or similar?
I don't know why you don't just use:
chmod +x systype.sh
and call it a day.
Adding execution permission to the file Group rather that the file User fixed the issue.
PS: I wonder why? It seems the Make utility run shell scripts not with the same user that started Make...

How to change directory through a script file

i want to execute some commands through terminal. I have on script for executing commands.Some commands are working but when trying to change directory its not changing. There is no error while executing that script.The script which i made is executable and is mention below:
make clean
make
cd /home/user
save this as script.sh and make it executable
Current working directory is a process property. Each process has independent value for its working directory. Your script works correctly: it changes the current working directory of the shell process that executes it.
If you want your interactive shell to change working directory you have to instruct it. You can do it by "sourcing" your script into your interactive shell. "Sourcing" means reading the script and executing the commands by the shell that sources it. This is opposed to "executing" the script, where a separate shell process is started and executes the script contents.
You can source a script using source or . commands. Like this:
source script.sh
or this:
. script.sh

Difference between different ways of running shell script

Recently I have been asked a question. What are the different ways of executing shell script and what is the difference between each methods ?
I said we can run shell script in the following methods assuming test.sh is the script name,
sh test.sh
./test.sh
. ./test.sh
I don't know the difference between 1 & 2. But usually in first 2 methods, upon executing, it will spawn new process and run the same. Whereas in the last method, it won't spawn new process. Instead it runs in the same one.
Can someone throw more insight on this and correct me if I am wrong?
sh test.sh
Tells the command to use sh to execute test.sh.
./test.sh
Tells the command to execute the script. The interpreter needs to be defined in the first line with something like #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash. Note (thanks keltar) that in this case the file test.sh needs to have execution rights for the user performing this command. Otherwise it will not be executed.
In both cases, all variables used will expire after the script is executed.
. ./test.sh
Sources the code. That is, it executes it and whatever executed, variables defined, etc, will persist in the session.
For further information, you can check What is the difference between executing a bash script and sourcing a bash script? very good answer:
The differences are:
When you execute the script you are opening a new shell, type
the commands in the new shell, copy the output back to your current
shell, then close the new shell. Any changes to environment will take
effect only in the new shell and will be lost once the new shell is
closed.
When you source the script you are typing the commands in your
current shell. Any changes to the environment will take effect and stay in your current shell.

What is the difference between these two commands which are used to run shell script?

Here I have one script which exporting some necessary path in Linux. After running this script I have to run some other scripts.
I have two scripts
1 import.sh = importing paths
2 main.sh = this script do something with HCI (use for Bluetooth purpose).
when I run ./import.sh and than ./main.sh then it's giving error.
And when I run . ./import.sh and then ./main.sh then it's working fine.
So what is the diff between ./import.sh and . ./import.sh?
What happens if I run script as a super user? May be . ./ using for run script as a super user.
The difference between the two invocations is that ./import.sh is executing import.sh as a program, and . ./import.sh is evaluating it in your shell.
If "import.sh" were an ELF program (a compiled binary, not a shell script), . ./import.sh would not work.
If import.sh had a shebang at the top (like #!/bin/perl), you'd be in for a nasty surprise and a huge number of error messages if you tried to do . ./import.sh - unless the shebang happened to match your current shell, in which case it would accidentally work. Or if the Perl code were to somehow be a valid Bash script, which seems unlikely.
. ./import.sh is equivalent to source import.sh, and doesn't require that the file have the execute bit set (since it's interpreted by your already-running shell instead of spawned via exec). I assume this is the source of your error. Another difference is that ./import.sh runs in the current shell instead of a subshell, so any non-exported environment variables will affect the shell you used for the launch!
So, they're actually rather different. You usually want to ./import.sh unless you know what you're doing and understand the difference.
./import.sh executes the shell script in a new sub shell shell.
. ./import.sh executes the shell script in the current shell.
The extra . denotes the current shell.
./import.sh runs the script as a normal script - that is, in a subshell. That means it can't affect your current shell in any way. The paths it's supposed to import won't get set up in your current shell.
The extra ., which is equivalent to source, runs the script in the context of your current shell - meaning it can modify environment variables, etc. (like the paths you're trying to set up) in the current shell. From the bash man page:
. filename [arguments]
source filename [arguments]
Read and execute commands from filename in the current shell environment and return the exit status of the last command executed from filename.
The . ./import.sh "sources" the script, where as simply ./import.sh just executes it.
The former allows you to modify the current environment, where the later will only affect the environment within the child execution.
The former is also equivalent to (though mostly Bash-specific):
source ./import.sh
help source yields:
source: source filename [arguments]
Execute commands from a file in the current shell.
Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
when FILENAME is executed.
Exit Status:
Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
FILENAME cannot be read.

Resources