Mdthbs

Why do balloons get cold when they deflate?

Why should care be taken while closing a capacitive circuit?

Check disk usage of files returned with spaces

Is recepted a word?

Polar contour plot in Mathematica?

How do we test and determine if a USB cable+connector is version 2, 3.0 or 3.1?

Unsolved Problems due to Lack of Computational Power

My new Acer Aspire 7 doesn't have a Legacy Boot option, what can I do to get it?

Are unaudited server logs admissible in a court of law?

Playing a fast but quiet Alberti bass

Can 'in-' mean both 'in' and 'no'?

Is there a commercial liquid with refractive index greater than n=2?

How best to join tables, which have different lengths on the same column values which exist in both tables?

What are these protruding elements from SU-27's tail?

Do banks' profitability really suffer under low interest rates

Is there a way to make the "o" keypress of other-window <C-x><C-o> repeatable?

How can I train a replacement without them knowing?

Vegetarian dishes on Russian trains (European part)

Can others monetize my project with GPLv3?

Number of matrices with bounded products of rows and columns

When does The Truman Show take place?

What's the point of writing that I know will never be used or read?

Does git delete empty folders?

How to detect a failed AES256 decryption programmatically?

which shell will sudo use to execute a shell script without the shebang line

Loops not working in bash when bash script is run with sudo on UbuntuIf I sudo execute a Bash script file, will all commands inside the Bash script be executed as sudo as well?How to prevent the caller's shell from being used in sudoInvoking a script with sudo ignores the shebangdebian 8.2 can no longer su to rootWhich shell interpreter runs a script with no shebang?how to let sudo fork bash instead of sh?execute command with sudo and execute Bash script with sudoHow does a EC2 machine prevents ssh root access with a warning?Execute shell script without passwordsudo without sudo, implying sudo in script

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

7

My environment is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and the sudo version is 1.8.3p1.

First I login as a normal user:

$ whoami

fin



$ cat /etc/passwd | grep -i "root|fin"

root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash

fin:x:1000:1000:This is a normal user:/home/fin:/bin/bash



$ ls -l /bin/sh

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Mar 30  2012 /bin/sh -> dash



$ ls -l /bin/bash

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 920788 Apr  3  2012 /bin/bash



$ echo $SHELL

/bin/bash



$ ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'

bash



$ ls -l ./test.sh

-rwxr-xr-x 1 fin fin 37 Sep 27 16:46 test.sh



$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo ./test.sh

sh

I suppose the last output should also be bash because /etc/passwd shows that root uses bash, am I missing any points about sudo?

bash shell shell-script sudo

share|improve this question

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

add a comment | 

7

My environment is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and the sudo version is 1.8.3p1.

First I login as a normal user:

$ whoami

fin



$ cat /etc/passwd | grep -i "root|fin"

root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash

fin:x:1000:1000:This is a normal user:/home/fin:/bin/bash



$ ls -l /bin/sh

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Mar 30  2012 /bin/sh -> dash



$ ls -l /bin/bash

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 920788 Apr  3  2012 /bin/bash



$ echo $SHELL

/bin/bash



$ ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'

bash



$ ls -l ./test.sh

-rwxr-xr-x 1 fin fin 37 Sep 27 16:46 test.sh



$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo ./test.sh

sh

I suppose the last output should also be bash because /etc/passwd shows that root uses bash, am I missing any points about sudo?

bash shell shell-script sudo

share|improve this question

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

add a comment | 

My environment is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, and the sudo version is 1.8.3p1.

First I login as a normal user:

$ whoami

fin



$ cat /etc/passwd | grep -i "root|fin"

root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash

fin:x:1000:1000:This is a normal user:/home/fin:/bin/bash



$ ls -l /bin/sh

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Mar 30  2012 /bin/sh -> dash



$ ls -l /bin/bash

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 920788 Apr  3  2012 /bin/bash



$ echo $SHELL

/bin/bash



$ ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'

bash



$ ls -l ./test.sh

-rwxr-xr-x 1 fin fin 37 Sep 27 16:46 test.sh



$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo ./test.sh

sh

I suppose the last output should also be bash because /etc/passwd shows that root uses bash, am I missing any points about sudo?

bash shell shell-script sudo

share|improve this question

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

$ whoami

fin



$ cat /etc/passwd | grep -i "root|fin"

root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash

fin:x:1000:1000:This is a normal user:/home/fin:/bin/bash



$ ls -l /bin/sh

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Mar 30  2012 /bin/sh -> dash



$ ls -l /bin/bash

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 920788 Apr  3  2012 /bin/bash



$ echo $SHELL

/bin/bash



$ ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'

bash



$ ls -l ./test.sh

-rwxr-xr-x 1 fin fin 37 Sep 27 16:46 test.sh



$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo ./test.sh

sh

share|improve this question

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

edited Sep 27 '13 at 9:26

slm♦

266k7474 gold badges576576 silver badges722722 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

asked Sep 27 '13 at 9:02

laykalayka

4811 silver badge44 bronze badges

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

12

It uses _PATH_BSHELL like execvp() which on Linux is defined as /bin/sh in /usr/include/paths.h. That should be the same as when executed with env or find -exec for instance.

It should certainly not use the user's login shell. The fact that you're seeing bash above is because it's bash (the shell you enter that command line in) that tries to execute it and when it gets a ENOEXEC error code from execve it decides to interpret it with itself instead (in sh compatibility mode).

share|improve this answer

edited Sep 27 '13 at 11:00

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for your reply, so it depends on sudo implementation to decide whether to use sh or parse /etc/passwd when it receieves ENOEXEC error?
  
  – layka
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:11
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  No, sudo will not use the user's login shell unless you tell it to by telling it you want to pass it a command line to interpret by a shell (with -s) as opposed to a command to execute. If a command to execute, it will behave like execvp, that is like the system is meant to execute commands.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Stephane Chazelas: I think it doesn't mean system to run command. sudo always setup its execution enviroment prior the call to execve(). If you don't pass -s, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL.
  
  – cuonglm
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Gnouc, Yes, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL like the system does (in execvp(), env, find, vi most shells...), it just happen to implement its own version of execvp(). It may also use _PATH_BSHELL with -s if executing $SHELL returns ENOEXEC. See my comment to your answer for more details.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 17:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

Because you don't use -s option, so sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL (which is define in /usr/include/paths.h on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS) to set $SHELL it run. Looking in to sudo source code:

/* Stash user's shell for use with the -s flag; don't pass to plugin. */

    if ((ud->shell = getenv("SHELL")) == NULL || ud->shell[0] == '') {

    ud->shell = pw->pw_shell[0] ? pw->pw_shell : _PATH_BSHELL;

    }

If you use -s option, sudo will use your $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL:

$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo -s ./test.sh

bash

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Note that -s doesn't mean the script will be interpreted by $SHELL, it just means that (assuming you've been authorised to use $SHELL as the target user), the command is started as $SHELL -c ./test.sh. Shells like bash, yash or ksh93 may choose to interpret the she-bang-less scripts with a copy of themselves, others would not and would call the system's sh instead.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 11:05
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  In other words, it's not $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL, it's exec($SHELL, "-c", "./test.sh") unconditionally instead of if (exec("./test.sh") == ENOEXEC) exec(_PATH_BSHELL, "./test.sh") (pseudo-code).
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 12:21
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

The kernel can only run binary executable images. So how do scripts get run? After all, I can type my_script_without_shebang at a shell prompt and I don't get an ENOEXEC error. Script execution is done not by the kernel, but by the shell. The exec code in the shell usually looks something like:

/* try to run the program */

execl(program, basename(program), (char *)0);



/* the exec failed -- maybe it is a shell script without shebang? */

if (errno == ENOEXEC)

    execl ("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", program, (char *)0);

You can verify that with tracing a dummy shell script without shebang:

cat > /tmp/foo.sh <<EOF

echo

EOF



chmod u+x /tmp/foo.sh



strace /tmp/foo.sh 2>&1 | grep exec

execve("/tmp/foo.sh", ["/tmp/foo.sh"], [/* 28 vars */]) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format error)

So then, the execution proceed as Stephane described - default shell is used (in the above code snippet is hard-coded). This nice UNIX FAQ can answer more.

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

add a comment | 

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

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f92622%2fwhich-shell-will-sudo-use-to-execute-a-shell-script-without-the-shebang-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

12

It uses _PATH_BSHELL like execvp() which on Linux is defined as /bin/sh in /usr/include/paths.h. That should be the same as when executed with env or find -exec for instance.

It should certainly not use the user's login shell. The fact that you're seeing bash above is because it's bash (the shell you enter that command line in) that tries to execute it and when it gets a ENOEXEC error code from execve it decides to interpret it with itself instead (in sh compatibility mode).

share|improve this answer

edited Sep 27 '13 at 11:00

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for your reply, so it depends on sudo implementation to decide whether to use sh or parse /etc/passwd when it receieves ENOEXEC error?
  
  – layka
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:11
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  No, sudo will not use the user's login shell unless you tell it to by telling it you want to pass it a command line to interpret by a shell (with -s) as opposed to a command to execute. If a command to execute, it will behave like execvp, that is like the system is meant to execute commands.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Stephane Chazelas: I think it doesn't mean system to run command. sudo always setup its execution enviroment prior the call to execve(). If you don't pass -s, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL.
  
  – cuonglm
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Gnouc, Yes, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL like the system does (in execvp(), env, find, vi most shells...), it just happen to implement its own version of execvp(). It may also use _PATH_BSHELL with -s if executing $SHELL returns ENOEXEC. See my comment to your answer for more details.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 17:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

12

It uses _PATH_BSHELL like execvp() which on Linux is defined as /bin/sh in /usr/include/paths.h. That should be the same as when executed with env or find -exec for instance.

It should certainly not use the user's login shell. The fact that you're seeing bash above is because it's bash (the shell you enter that command line in) that tries to execute it and when it gets a ENOEXEC error code from execve it decides to interpret it with itself instead (in sh compatibility mode).

share|improve this answer

edited Sep 27 '13 at 11:00

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Thanks for your reply, so it depends on sudo implementation to decide whether to use sh or parse /etc/passwd when it receieves ENOEXEC error?
  
  – layka
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:11
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  No, sudo will not use the user's login shell unless you tell it to by telling it you want to pass it a command line to interpret by a shell (with -s) as opposed to a command to execute. If a command to execute, it will behave like execvp, that is like the system is meant to execute commands.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:19
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Stephane Chazelas: I think it doesn't mean system to run command. sudo always setup its execution enviroment prior the call to execve(). If you don't pass -s, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL.
  
  – cuonglm
  Sep 27 '13 at 14:31
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Gnouc, Yes, sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL like the system does (in execvp(), env, find, vi most shells...), it just happen to implement its own version of execvp(). It may also use _PATH_BSHELL with -s if executing $SHELL returns ENOEXEC. See my comment to your answer for more details.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 17:43
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

It uses _PATH_BSHELL like execvp() which on Linux is defined as /bin/sh in /usr/include/paths.h. That should be the same as when executed with env or find -exec for instance.

It should certainly not use the user's login shell. The fact that you're seeing bash above is because it's bash (the shell you enter that command line in) that tries to execute it and when it gets a ENOEXEC error code from execve it decides to interpret it with itself instead (in sh compatibility mode).

share|improve this answer

edited Sep 27 '13 at 11:00

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

edited Sep 27 '13 at 11:00

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 9:51

Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

330k5858 gold badges642642 silver badges10091009 bronze badges

5

Because you don't use -s option, so sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL (which is define in /usr/include/paths.h on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS) to set $SHELL it run. Looking in to sudo source code:

/* Stash user's shell for use with the -s flag; don't pass to plugin. */

    if ((ud->shell = getenv("SHELL")) == NULL || ud->shell[0] == '') {

    ud->shell = pw->pw_shell[0] ? pw->pw_shell : _PATH_BSHELL;

    }

If you use -s option, sudo will use your $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL:

$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo -s ./test.sh

bash

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Note that -s doesn't mean the script will be interpreted by $SHELL, it just means that (assuming you've been authorised to use $SHELL as the target user), the command is started as $SHELL -c ./test.sh. Shells like bash, yash or ksh93 may choose to interpret the she-bang-less scripts with a copy of themselves, others would not and would call the system's sh instead.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 11:05
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  In other words, it's not $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL, it's exec($SHELL, "-c", "./test.sh") unconditionally instead of if (exec("./test.sh") == ENOEXEC) exec(_PATH_BSHELL, "./test.sh") (pseudo-code).
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 12:21
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

Because you don't use -s option, so sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL (which is define in /usr/include/paths.h on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS) to set $SHELL it run. Looking in to sudo source code:

/* Stash user's shell for use with the -s flag; don't pass to plugin. */

    if ((ud->shell = getenv("SHELL")) == NULL || ud->shell[0] == '') {

    ud->shell = pw->pw_shell[0] ? pw->pw_shell : _PATH_BSHELL;

    }

If you use -s option, sudo will use your $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL:

$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo -s ./test.sh

bash

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Note that -s doesn't mean the script will be interpreted by $SHELL, it just means that (assuming you've been authorised to use $SHELL as the target user), the command is started as $SHELL -c ./test.sh. Shells like bash, yash or ksh93 may choose to interpret the she-bang-less scripts with a copy of themselves, others would not and would call the system's sh instead.
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 11:05
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  In other words, it's not $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL, it's exec($SHELL, "-c", "./test.sh") unconditionally instead of if (exec("./test.sh") == ENOEXEC) exec(_PATH_BSHELL, "./test.sh") (pseudo-code).
  
  – Stéphane Chazelas
  Sep 27 '13 at 12:21
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Because you don't use -s option, so sudo will use _PATH_BSHELL (which is define in /usr/include/paths.h on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS) to set $SHELL it run. Looking in to sudo source code:

/* Stash user's shell for use with the -s flag; don't pass to plugin. */

    if ((ud->shell = getenv("SHELL")) == NULL || ud->shell[0] == '') {

    ud->shell = pw->pw_shell[0] ? pw->pw_shell : _PATH_BSHELL;

    }

If you use -s option, sudo will use your $SHELL instead of _PATH_BSHELL:

$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo -s ./test.sh

bash

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

/* Stash user's shell for use with the -s flag; don't pass to plugin. */

    if ((ud->shell = getenv("SHELL")) == NULL || ud->shell[0] == '') {

    ud->shell = pw->pw_shell[0] ? pw->pw_shell : _PATH_BSHELL;

    }

$ cat ./test.sh

ps | grep "$$" | awk '{ print $4 }'



$ ./test.sh

bash



$ sudo -s ./test.sh

bash

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:26

cuonglmcuonglm

110k2727 gold badges224224 silver badges326326 bronze badges

4

The kernel can only run binary executable images. So how do scripts get run? After all, I can type my_script_without_shebang at a shell prompt and I don't get an ENOEXEC error. Script execution is done not by the kernel, but by the shell. The exec code in the shell usually looks something like:

/* try to run the program */

execl(program, basename(program), (char *)0);



/* the exec failed -- maybe it is a shell script without shebang? */

if (errno == ENOEXEC)

    execl ("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", program, (char *)0);

You can verify that with tracing a dummy shell script without shebang:

cat > /tmp/foo.sh <<EOF

echo

EOF



chmod u+x /tmp/foo.sh



strace /tmp/foo.sh 2>&1 | grep exec

execve("/tmp/foo.sh", ["/tmp/foo.sh"], [/* 28 vars */]) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format error)

So then, the execution proceed as Stephane described - default shell is used (in the above code snippet is hard-coded). This nice UNIX FAQ can answer more.

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

add a comment | 

4

The kernel can only run binary executable images. So how do scripts get run? After all, I can type my_script_without_shebang at a shell prompt and I don't get an ENOEXEC error. Script execution is done not by the kernel, but by the shell. The exec code in the shell usually looks something like:

/* try to run the program */

execl(program, basename(program), (char *)0);



/* the exec failed -- maybe it is a shell script without shebang? */

if (errno == ENOEXEC)

    execl ("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", program, (char *)0);

You can verify that with tracing a dummy shell script without shebang:

cat > /tmp/foo.sh <<EOF

echo

EOF



chmod u+x /tmp/foo.sh



strace /tmp/foo.sh 2>&1 | grep exec

execve("/tmp/foo.sh", ["/tmp/foo.sh"], [/* 28 vars */]) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format error)

So then, the execution proceed as Stephane described - default shell is used (in the above code snippet is hard-coded). This nice UNIX FAQ can answer more.

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

add a comment | 

The kernel can only run binary executable images. So how do scripts get run? After all, I can type my_script_without_shebang at a shell prompt and I don't get an ENOEXEC error. Script execution is done not by the kernel, but by the shell. The exec code in the shell usually looks something like:

/* try to run the program */

execl(program, basename(program), (char *)0);



/* the exec failed -- maybe it is a shell script without shebang? */

if (errno == ENOEXEC)

    execl ("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", program, (char *)0);

You can verify that with tracing a dummy shell script without shebang:

cat > /tmp/foo.sh <<EOF

echo

EOF



chmod u+x /tmp/foo.sh



strace /tmp/foo.sh 2>&1 | grep exec

execve("/tmp/foo.sh", ["/tmp/foo.sh"], [/* 28 vars */]) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format error)

So then, the execution proceed as Stephane described - default shell is used (in the above code snippet is hard-coded). This nice UNIX FAQ can answer more.

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

/* try to run the program */

execl(program, basename(program), (char *)0);



/* the exec failed -- maybe it is a shell script without shebang? */

if (errno == ENOEXEC)

    execl ("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", program, (char *)0);

cat > /tmp/foo.sh <<EOF

echo

EOF



chmod u+x /tmp/foo.sh



strace /tmp/foo.sh 2>&1 | grep exec

execve("/tmp/foo.sh", ["/tmp/foo.sh"], [/* 28 vars */]) = -1 ENOEXEC (Exec format error)

share|improve this answer

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges

answered Sep 27 '13 at 10:28

dsmsk80dsmsk80

2,29399 silver badges1414 bronze badges