In bash, how do I execute the contents of a variable, VERBATIM, as though they were a command line?

耗尽温柔 提交于 2020-01-17 04:25:12

问题


I need to construct a complex command that includes quoted arguments. As it happens, they are arguments to grep, so I'll use that as my example and deeply simplify the command to just enough to demonstrate the error.

Let's start with a working example:

> COMMAND='/usr/bin/grep _'
> echo $COMMAND
/usr/bin/grep _
> $COMMAND
foo            <- I type this, and grep filters it out. 
foo_           <- I type this, and.....
foo_           <- ... it matches, so grep emits it.

"foo" is not echoed back because it lacks an underscore, "foo_" has one, so it's returned. Let's get to a demonstration of the problem:

> COMMAND='/usr/bin/grep "_ _"'
> echo -E $COMMAND
/usr/bin/grep "_ _"
> /usr/bin/grep "_ _"  <- The exact same command line
foo                <- fails to match
foo_ _             <- matches, so it gets echoed back
foo_ _
> $COMMAND             <- But that command doesn't work from a variable
grep: _": No such file or directory

In other words, when this command is invoked through a variable name, bash is taking the space between underscores as an argument delimiter - despite the quotes.

Normally, I'd fix this with backslashes:

> COMMAND='/usr/bin/grep "_\ _"'
> $COMMAND
grep: trailing backslash (\)

Okay, maybe I need another layer of escaping the backslash:

> COMMAND='/usr/bin/grep "_\\ _"'
12:32 (master) /Users/ronbarry> $COMMAND
grep: _": No such file or directory

And now we're back to square one - the command line is still being broken up at the space. I can, of course, verify all of this with some debugging, which establishes that the backslashes are surviving, unescaped, and grep is being called with multiple arguments:

> set -x
> $COMMAND
+ /usr/bin/grep '"_\\' '_"'  <- grep is being called with two args

I have a solution to the problem that takes advantage of arrays, but packing commands this way (in my full implementation, which I'll spare you) is unfamiliar to most people who'd read my code. To oversimplify the creation of an array-based command:

> declare -a COMMAND=('/usr/bin/grep' '-i' 'a b')
12:44 (master) /Users/ronbarry> ${COMMAND[*]}
foo           <- Same old, same old
fooa B        <- ...
fooa B        <- Matches because of case-insensitive (-i) grep.

Finally we get to the question. Why does bash break up quoted arguments in strings when interpreting them as commands and why doesn't there seem to be a string-y way to get it to work? If I have a command packed in a string variable, it violates the Principle of Least Surprise to have that string interpreted differently than the string itself would be. If someone can point me at some docs that cover all of this, and will set me at peace with why I have to resort to the infinitely uglier mechanism of building up arrays with all of my commands, I'd very much appreciate it.


回答1:


Disclaimer: After writing the following, I almost decided that the question should be closed for encouraging opinion-based responses. This is an opinion-based response. Proceed at your own risk.

Why does bash break up quoted arguments in strings when interpreting them as commands

Because that's what it does. A more interesting question might be "Why does bash break up strings at all?", to which the only possible answer would be "it seemed like a good idea at the time".

Or, to put it another way: In the beginning, nobody thought of putting spaces into filenames. When you only had a few letters for a filename, you didn't waste any of them on spaces. So it seemed reasonable to represent a list of words as just a space-separated list of words, and that was the basis on which shell languages were developed. So the default behaviour of bash, like that of all unix-y shells, is to consider a string with whitespace in it to be a whitespace-separated list of words.

But, of course, that leads to all sorts of headaches, because strings are not structured data. Sometimes a filename does have whitespace in its name. And not all utility arguments are filenames, either. Sometimes you want to give an argument to a utility which is, for example, a sentence. Without that complication, shells were able to avoid making you type quotes, unlike "real" programming languages where strings need to be quoted. But once you decide that sometimes a space in a string is just another character, you need to have some kind of quoting system. So then the syntax of shells added several quoting forms, each with slightly different semantics. The most common is double-quoting, which marks the contents as a single word but still allows variable expansion.

It remains the case that shell quotes, like quotes in any other language, are simply syntactic constructs. They are not part of the string, and the fact that a particular character in a string was marked with a quote (or, equivalently, a backslash) is not retained as part of the string -- again, just like any other programming language. Strings are not really lists of words; they are just treated that way by default.

All of that is not very satisfactory. The nature of shell programming is that you really want a data structure which is a list of "words" -- or, better, a list of strings. And, eventually, shells got around to doing that. Unfortunately, by then there wasn't much syntactic space left in shell languages; it was considered important that the new features not change the behaviour of existing shell scripts. As far as I know, the current shell syntax for arrays was created by David Korn in 1988 (or earlier); eventually, bash also implemented arrays with basically the same syntax.

One of the curiosities in the syntax is that there are three ways of specifying that an entire array should be substituted:

  1. ${array[*]} or ${array[@]}: concatenate all the array elements together separated with the first character in $IFS, and then consider the result to be a whitespace-separated list of words.

  2. "${array[*]}": concatenate all the array elements together separated with the first character in $IFS, and then consider the result to be a single word.

  3. "${array[@]}": each array element is inserted as a separate word.

Of these, the first one is essentially useless; the second one is occasionally useful, and the third -- and most difficult to type -- is the one you almost always want.

In the above brief discussion, I left out any consideration of glob characters and filename expansion, and a number of other shell idiosyncrasies. So don't take it as a complete tutorial, by any means.

why doesn't there seem to be a string-y way to get it to work?

You can always use eval. Unfortunately. If you really really want to get bash to interpret a string as though it were a bash program rather than a string, and if you are prepared to open your script up to all manner of injection attacks, then the shell will happily give you enough rope. Personally, I would never allow a script which used eval to pass code review so I'm not going to expand on its use here. But it's documented.

If I have a command packed in a string variable, it violates the Principle of Least Surprise to have that string interpreted differently than the string itself would be.

Surprise is really in the eye of the beholder. There are probably lots of programmers who think that a newline character really occupies two bytes, and are Surprised when it turns out that in C, '\n'[0] is not a backslash. But I think most of us would be Surprised if it were. (I've tried to answer SO questions based on this misunderstanding, and it is not easy.)

Bash strings, regardless of anything else, are strings. They are not bash programs. Having them suddenly interpreted as bash programs would, in my opinion, not only be surprising but dangerous. At least if you use eval, there is a big red flag for the code reviewer.



来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28651245/in-bash-how-do-i-execute-the-contents-of-a-variable-verbatim-as-though-they-w

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!