sudo without sudo, implying sudo in script The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InBash Function DecoratorWhy is my script calling multiple functions?sudo in non-interactive scriptWhat's the best way to make a bash function in a script as a parameter when running via command line?Executing a Bash Script Function with SudoHow to pass parameters to function in a bash script?Correct way to call a Bash function from all sessionsHow shall I reuse a function in multiple scripts?shell script: use sudo inside it vs run it with sudo?Writing a script containing just one function definition v.s. moving the code in function body to the script?

How to manage monthly salary

aging parents with no investments

Output the Arecibo Message

What is a mixture ratio of propellant?

Is bread bad for ducks?

Limit the amount of RAM Mathematica may access?

What does "sndry explns" mean in one of the Hitchhiker's guide books?

Could JWST stay at L2 "forever"?

Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

What is the use of option -o in the useradd command?

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

Can we apply L'Hospital's rule where the derivative is not continuous?

In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?

Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid

Confusion about non-derivable continuous functions

If a poisoned arrow's piercing damage is reduced to 0, do you still get poisoned?

Should I write numbers in words or as numerals when there are multiple next to each other?

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Where does the "burst of radiance" from Holy Weapon originate?

Does light intensity oscillate really fast since it is a wave?

Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?



sudo without sudo, implying sudo in script



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InBash Function DecoratorWhy is my script calling multiple functions?sudo in non-interactive scriptWhat's the best way to make a bash function in a script as a parameter when running via command line?Executing a Bash Script Function with SudoHow to pass parameters to function in a bash script?Correct way to call a Bash function from all sessionsHow shall I reuse a function in multiple scripts?shell script: use sudo inside it vs run it with sudo?Writing a script containing just one function definition v.s. moving the code in function body to the script?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








-1















I made some scripts containing some functions which by design needs sudo permission. I have added those path in .bashrc for Linux and .bash_profile for MacOS so that it can be called from anywhere.



But I do not want the user to type sudo each time they want to call those script functions. Is there any way I can imply sudo in a way that whenever these functions are called, terminal would assume its being called from root user?



I think I should just add sudo -i at the beginning of the script or maybe each function? Or is there any other alternative way of implying sudo? Also, would be great to know if you think it would be terrible or dangerous to imply sudo and if it is not recommended.



An example of dangerous-function script that contains some functions which, I am trying to accomplish without specifying sudo



#!/bin/bash
start-one()

## do dangerous stuff with sudo
systemctl start dangerous.service


start-two()

systemctl start dangerous1.service


start-launchwizard()

systemctl start dangerous2.service


## Calling functions one by one...
"$@"


I dont want to call them by sudo dangerous-function start-one
I just want to call them with dangerous-function start-one but still get the same result as the previous one.










share|improve this question
























  • Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

    – 0xSheepdog
    Apr 6 at 6:36











  • @0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 6:38







  • 1





    Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

    – glenn jackman
    Apr 6 at 11:24











  • Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago

















-1















I made some scripts containing some functions which by design needs sudo permission. I have added those path in .bashrc for Linux and .bash_profile for MacOS so that it can be called from anywhere.



But I do not want the user to type sudo each time they want to call those script functions. Is there any way I can imply sudo in a way that whenever these functions are called, terminal would assume its being called from root user?



I think I should just add sudo -i at the beginning of the script or maybe each function? Or is there any other alternative way of implying sudo? Also, would be great to know if you think it would be terrible or dangerous to imply sudo and if it is not recommended.



An example of dangerous-function script that contains some functions which, I am trying to accomplish without specifying sudo



#!/bin/bash
start-one()

## do dangerous stuff with sudo
systemctl start dangerous.service


start-two()

systemctl start dangerous1.service


start-launchwizard()

systemctl start dangerous2.service


## Calling functions one by one...
"$@"


I dont want to call them by sudo dangerous-function start-one
I just want to call them with dangerous-function start-one but still get the same result as the previous one.










share|improve this question
























  • Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

    – 0xSheepdog
    Apr 6 at 6:36











  • @0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 6:38







  • 1





    Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

    – glenn jackman
    Apr 6 at 11:24











  • Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago













-1












-1








-1








I made some scripts containing some functions which by design needs sudo permission. I have added those path in .bashrc for Linux and .bash_profile for MacOS so that it can be called from anywhere.



But I do not want the user to type sudo each time they want to call those script functions. Is there any way I can imply sudo in a way that whenever these functions are called, terminal would assume its being called from root user?



I think I should just add sudo -i at the beginning of the script or maybe each function? Or is there any other alternative way of implying sudo? Also, would be great to know if you think it would be terrible or dangerous to imply sudo and if it is not recommended.



An example of dangerous-function script that contains some functions which, I am trying to accomplish without specifying sudo



#!/bin/bash
start-one()

## do dangerous stuff with sudo
systemctl start dangerous.service


start-two()

systemctl start dangerous1.service


start-launchwizard()

systemctl start dangerous2.service


## Calling functions one by one...
"$@"


I dont want to call them by sudo dangerous-function start-one
I just want to call them with dangerous-function start-one but still get the same result as the previous one.










share|improve this question
















I made some scripts containing some functions which by design needs sudo permission. I have added those path in .bashrc for Linux and .bash_profile for MacOS so that it can be called from anywhere.



But I do not want the user to type sudo each time they want to call those script functions. Is there any way I can imply sudo in a way that whenever these functions are called, terminal would assume its being called from root user?



I think I should just add sudo -i at the beginning of the script or maybe each function? Or is there any other alternative way of implying sudo? Also, would be great to know if you think it would be terrible or dangerous to imply sudo and if it is not recommended.



An example of dangerous-function script that contains some functions which, I am trying to accomplish without specifying sudo



#!/bin/bash
start-one()

## do dangerous stuff with sudo
systemctl start dangerous.service


start-two()

systemctl start dangerous1.service


start-launchwizard()

systemctl start dangerous2.service


## Calling functions one by one...
"$@"


I dont want to call them by sudo dangerous-function start-one
I just want to call them with dangerous-function start-one but still get the same result as the previous one.







bash shell sudo bashrc function






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 6 at 7:00







Rakib Fiha

















asked Apr 6 at 6:29









Rakib FihaRakib Fiha

218




218












  • Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

    – 0xSheepdog
    Apr 6 at 6:36











  • @0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 6:38







  • 1





    Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

    – glenn jackman
    Apr 6 at 11:24











  • Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago

















  • Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

    – 0xSheepdog
    Apr 6 at 6:36











  • @0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 6:38







  • 1





    Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

    – glenn jackman
    Apr 6 at 11:24











  • Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago
















Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

– 0xSheepdog
Apr 6 at 6:36





Why can't you execute the script like $ sudo ./script.sh?

– 0xSheepdog
Apr 6 at 6:36













@0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 6:38






@0xSheepdog Thank you. I have updated the question. I dont know, just want to try I guess.

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 6:38





1




1





Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

– glenn jackman
Apr 6 at 11:24





Why don't you just add sudo to the function? start_one() { sudo systemctl ... ?

– glenn jackman
Apr 6 at 11:24













Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

– Rakib Fiha
2 days ago





Sorry for late reply, because if I want to make a systemd service for my script, including sudo within the script becomes weird

– Rakib Fiha
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














The "$@" will expand to the list of command line arguments, individually quoted. This means that if you call your script with



./script.sh start-one


it will run start-one at that point (which is your function). It also means that invoking it as



./script.sh ls


it would run ls.



Allowing a user to invoke the script using sudo (or using sudo inside the script) would allow them to run any command as root, if they had sudo access. You do not want this.



Instead, you would need to carefully validate the command line arguments. Maybe something like



foo_func () 
# stuff
printf 'foo:t%sn' "$@"


bar_func ()
# stuff
printf 'bar:t%sn' "$@"


arg=$1
shift

case $arg in
foo)
foo_func "$@" ;;
bar)
bar_func "$@" ;;
*)
printf 'invalid sub-command: %sn' "$arg" >&2
exit 1
esac


Testing:



$ sh script.sh bar 1 2 3
bar: 1
bar: 2
bar: 3




$ sh script.sh baz
invalid sub-command: baz


This would be safer to use with sudo, but you would still not want to execute anything that the user gives you within your various functions directly without sanitising the input. The script above does this by restricting the user to a particular set of sub-commands, and each function that handles a sub-command does not execute, eval, or source its arguments.



Let me say that again with other words: The script does not, and should not, try to execute the user input as code in any way. It should not try to figure out whether an argument corresponds to a function in the current environment that it can execute (functions may have been put there by the calling environment) and it should not execute scripts whose pathnames were given on the command line etc.



If a script is performing administrative tasks, I would be expecting to have to run it with sudo, and I would not want the script itself to ask me for my password, especially not if it's a script that I may want to run non-interactively (e.g. from a cron job). That is, a script performing administrative tasks requiring root privileges should (IMHO) be able to assume it's running with the correct privileges from the start.



If you want to test this in the script, you could do so with



if [ "$( id -u )" -ne 0 ]; then
echo 'please run this script as root' >&2
exit 1
fi


It then moves the decision of how to run the script with root privileges to the user of the script.






share|improve this answer

























  • Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:57












  • @RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 8:43











  • Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 9:47











  • @RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 9:51












  • the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago


















1














You can add your script in /etc/sudoers (preferably using `visudo) so that it is accessible to the user.



user ALL= /path/to/script


Then the user will able to execute path/to/script without sudo.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 7:16












  • @Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:24







  • 4





    Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

    – roaima
    Apr 6 at 7:42












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510855%2fsudo-without-sudo-implying-sudo-in-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














The "$@" will expand to the list of command line arguments, individually quoted. This means that if you call your script with



./script.sh start-one


it will run start-one at that point (which is your function). It also means that invoking it as



./script.sh ls


it would run ls.



Allowing a user to invoke the script using sudo (or using sudo inside the script) would allow them to run any command as root, if they had sudo access. You do not want this.



Instead, you would need to carefully validate the command line arguments. Maybe something like



foo_func () 
# stuff
printf 'foo:t%sn' "$@"


bar_func ()
# stuff
printf 'bar:t%sn' "$@"


arg=$1
shift

case $arg in
foo)
foo_func "$@" ;;
bar)
bar_func "$@" ;;
*)
printf 'invalid sub-command: %sn' "$arg" >&2
exit 1
esac


Testing:



$ sh script.sh bar 1 2 3
bar: 1
bar: 2
bar: 3




$ sh script.sh baz
invalid sub-command: baz


This would be safer to use with sudo, but you would still not want to execute anything that the user gives you within your various functions directly without sanitising the input. The script above does this by restricting the user to a particular set of sub-commands, and each function that handles a sub-command does not execute, eval, or source its arguments.



Let me say that again with other words: The script does not, and should not, try to execute the user input as code in any way. It should not try to figure out whether an argument corresponds to a function in the current environment that it can execute (functions may have been put there by the calling environment) and it should not execute scripts whose pathnames were given on the command line etc.



If a script is performing administrative tasks, I would be expecting to have to run it with sudo, and I would not want the script itself to ask me for my password, especially not if it's a script that I may want to run non-interactively (e.g. from a cron job). That is, a script performing administrative tasks requiring root privileges should (IMHO) be able to assume it's running with the correct privileges from the start.



If you want to test this in the script, you could do so with



if [ "$( id -u )" -ne 0 ]; then
echo 'please run this script as root' >&2
exit 1
fi


It then moves the decision of how to run the script with root privileges to the user of the script.






share|improve this answer

























  • Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:57












  • @RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 8:43











  • Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 9:47











  • @RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 9:51












  • the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago















5














The "$@" will expand to the list of command line arguments, individually quoted. This means that if you call your script with



./script.sh start-one


it will run start-one at that point (which is your function). It also means that invoking it as



./script.sh ls


it would run ls.



Allowing a user to invoke the script using sudo (or using sudo inside the script) would allow them to run any command as root, if they had sudo access. You do not want this.



Instead, you would need to carefully validate the command line arguments. Maybe something like



foo_func () 
# stuff
printf 'foo:t%sn' "$@"


bar_func ()
# stuff
printf 'bar:t%sn' "$@"


arg=$1
shift

case $arg in
foo)
foo_func "$@" ;;
bar)
bar_func "$@" ;;
*)
printf 'invalid sub-command: %sn' "$arg" >&2
exit 1
esac


Testing:



$ sh script.sh bar 1 2 3
bar: 1
bar: 2
bar: 3




$ sh script.sh baz
invalid sub-command: baz


This would be safer to use with sudo, but you would still not want to execute anything that the user gives you within your various functions directly without sanitising the input. The script above does this by restricting the user to a particular set of sub-commands, and each function that handles a sub-command does not execute, eval, or source its arguments.



Let me say that again with other words: The script does not, and should not, try to execute the user input as code in any way. It should not try to figure out whether an argument corresponds to a function in the current environment that it can execute (functions may have been put there by the calling environment) and it should not execute scripts whose pathnames were given on the command line etc.



If a script is performing administrative tasks, I would be expecting to have to run it with sudo, and I would not want the script itself to ask me for my password, especially not if it's a script that I may want to run non-interactively (e.g. from a cron job). That is, a script performing administrative tasks requiring root privileges should (IMHO) be able to assume it's running with the correct privileges from the start.



If you want to test this in the script, you could do so with



if [ "$( id -u )" -ne 0 ]; then
echo 'please run this script as root' >&2
exit 1
fi


It then moves the decision of how to run the script with root privileges to the user of the script.






share|improve this answer

























  • Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:57












  • @RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 8:43











  • Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 9:47











  • @RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 9:51












  • the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago













5












5








5







The "$@" will expand to the list of command line arguments, individually quoted. This means that if you call your script with



./script.sh start-one


it will run start-one at that point (which is your function). It also means that invoking it as



./script.sh ls


it would run ls.



Allowing a user to invoke the script using sudo (or using sudo inside the script) would allow them to run any command as root, if they had sudo access. You do not want this.



Instead, you would need to carefully validate the command line arguments. Maybe something like



foo_func () 
# stuff
printf 'foo:t%sn' "$@"


bar_func ()
# stuff
printf 'bar:t%sn' "$@"


arg=$1
shift

case $arg in
foo)
foo_func "$@" ;;
bar)
bar_func "$@" ;;
*)
printf 'invalid sub-command: %sn' "$arg" >&2
exit 1
esac


Testing:



$ sh script.sh bar 1 2 3
bar: 1
bar: 2
bar: 3




$ sh script.sh baz
invalid sub-command: baz


This would be safer to use with sudo, but you would still not want to execute anything that the user gives you within your various functions directly without sanitising the input. The script above does this by restricting the user to a particular set of sub-commands, and each function that handles a sub-command does not execute, eval, or source its arguments.



Let me say that again with other words: The script does not, and should not, try to execute the user input as code in any way. It should not try to figure out whether an argument corresponds to a function in the current environment that it can execute (functions may have been put there by the calling environment) and it should not execute scripts whose pathnames were given on the command line etc.



If a script is performing administrative tasks, I would be expecting to have to run it with sudo, and I would not want the script itself to ask me for my password, especially not if it's a script that I may want to run non-interactively (e.g. from a cron job). That is, a script performing administrative tasks requiring root privileges should (IMHO) be able to assume it's running with the correct privileges from the start.



If you want to test this in the script, you could do so with



if [ "$( id -u )" -ne 0 ]; then
echo 'please run this script as root' >&2
exit 1
fi


It then moves the decision of how to run the script with root privileges to the user of the script.






share|improve this answer















The "$@" will expand to the list of command line arguments, individually quoted. This means that if you call your script with



./script.sh start-one


it will run start-one at that point (which is your function). It also means that invoking it as



./script.sh ls


it would run ls.



Allowing a user to invoke the script using sudo (or using sudo inside the script) would allow them to run any command as root, if they had sudo access. You do not want this.



Instead, you would need to carefully validate the command line arguments. Maybe something like



foo_func () 
# stuff
printf 'foo:t%sn' "$@"


bar_func ()
# stuff
printf 'bar:t%sn' "$@"


arg=$1
shift

case $arg in
foo)
foo_func "$@" ;;
bar)
bar_func "$@" ;;
*)
printf 'invalid sub-command: %sn' "$arg" >&2
exit 1
esac


Testing:



$ sh script.sh bar 1 2 3
bar: 1
bar: 2
bar: 3




$ sh script.sh baz
invalid sub-command: baz


This would be safer to use with sudo, but you would still not want to execute anything that the user gives you within your various functions directly without sanitising the input. The script above does this by restricting the user to a particular set of sub-commands, and each function that handles a sub-command does not execute, eval, or source its arguments.



Let me say that again with other words: The script does not, and should not, try to execute the user input as code in any way. It should not try to figure out whether an argument corresponds to a function in the current environment that it can execute (functions may have been put there by the calling environment) and it should not execute scripts whose pathnames were given on the command line etc.



If a script is performing administrative tasks, I would be expecting to have to run it with sudo, and I would not want the script itself to ask me for my password, especially not if it's a script that I may want to run non-interactively (e.g. from a cron job). That is, a script performing administrative tasks requiring root privileges should (IMHO) be able to assume it's running with the correct privileges from the start.



If you want to test this in the script, you could do so with



if [ "$( id -u )" -ne 0 ]; then
echo 'please run this script as root' >&2
exit 1
fi


It then moves the decision of how to run the script with root privileges to the user of the script.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 6 at 13:03

























answered Apr 6 at 7:38









KusalanandaKusalananda

140k17261436




140k17261436












  • Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:57












  • @RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 8:43











  • Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 9:47











  • @RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 9:51












  • the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago

















  • Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:57












  • @RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 8:43











  • Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 9:47











  • @RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 9:51












  • the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

    – Rakib Fiha
    2 days ago
















Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 7:57






Wow, this was explained so perfectly. I will implement this case statement to avoid inputting invalid commands. Also, I was feeling the same way as you about implying sudo, and giving prompt to user if run without sudo would be much better, but I think I will still try to imply sudo after I sanitize the input from user. :)

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 7:57














@RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 8:43





@RakibFiha Note that you can't easily use sudo with functions (if you need to do that). See e.g. Executing a Bash Script Function with Sudo

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 8:43













Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 9:47





Thank you very much. Now I am trying to figure out how can I check if the parameter passed exists as a function from an array as Im trying to implement your case statement.

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 9:47













@RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 9:51






@RakibFiha Note that you don't need to do that as you can simple switch through the valid cases, and output an error when none matches. The point is that you don't use the string given to you by the user as something you can call. Instead you use that string to figure out if it's a sting that is valid. It's very much like testing the command line options (-h, -a etc.) to see whether a given option is valid or not.

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 9:51














the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

– Rakib Fiha
2 days ago





the case statement is working like a charm now, but I wanted to make a hash table because now my number of functions are increasing and did not want to write case statement for every single function one by one. For some reason case statement is worked only for the first object of the array. Thank you again. Learnt alot from this.

– Rakib Fiha
2 days ago













1














You can add your script in /etc/sudoers (preferably using `visudo) so that it is accessible to the user.



user ALL= /path/to/script


Then the user will able to execute path/to/script without sudo.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 7:16












  • @Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:24







  • 4





    Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

    – roaima
    Apr 6 at 7:42
















1














You can add your script in /etc/sudoers (preferably using `visudo) so that it is accessible to the user.



user ALL= /path/to/script


Then the user will able to execute path/to/script without sudo.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 7:16












  • @Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:24







  • 4





    Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

    – roaima
    Apr 6 at 7:42














1












1








1







You can add your script in /etc/sudoers (preferably using `visudo) so that it is accessible to the user.



user ALL= /path/to/script


Then the user will able to execute path/to/script without sudo.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










You can add your script in /etc/sudoers (preferably using `visudo) so that it is accessible to the user.



user ALL= /path/to/script


Then the user will able to execute path/to/script without sudo.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered Apr 6 at 7:12









user5325user5325

864




864




New contributor




user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user5325 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 7:16












  • @Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:24







  • 4





    Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

    – roaima
    Apr 6 at 7:42


















  • Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

    – Kusalananda
    Apr 6 at 7:16












  • @Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

    – Rakib Fiha
    Apr 6 at 7:24







  • 4





    Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

    – roaima
    Apr 6 at 7:42

















Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 7:16






Note that since the script simply executes "$@", this would allow the user to execute anything with root privileges, e.g. sudo /path/to/script reboot.

– Kusalananda
Apr 6 at 7:16














@Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 7:24






@Kusalananda wow, thank you for pointing that out. I thought $@ was only passing the functions within the script. How can I avoid that?

– Rakib Fiha
Apr 6 at 7:24





4




4





Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

– roaima
Apr 6 at 7:42






Adding a script to sudoers doesn't make it magically run without needing sudo. It simply tells the sudo command it's allowed to let the user run that script. You still need to invoke sudo.

– roaima
Apr 6 at 7:42


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510855%2fsudo-without-sudo-implying-sudo-in-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Àrd-bhaile Cathair chruinne/Baile mòr cruinne | Artagailean ceangailte | Clàr-taice na seòladaireachd

대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495

Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition