Correct a test in a bash script, to echo only if every file found meets the specified test condition
for x in $(ls -ll <path to files> | awk '{ print $3,$4 }' | tail -n +2) ; do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ] ; then
echo "Fail"
break
else
echo "Pass"
fi
done
Now, this prints "Pass" for every file it finds. I want to print "Pass" if all files are owned by root, and print "Fail" if any user or group in list is not root.
bash shell-script
add a comment |
for x in $(ls -ll <path to files> | awk '{ print $3,$4 }' | tail -n +2) ; do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ] ; then
echo "Fail"
break
else
echo "Pass"
fi
done
Now, this prints "Pass" for every file it finds. I want to print "Pass" if all files are owned by root, and print "Fail" if any user or group in list is not root.
bash shell-script
add a comment |
for x in $(ls -ll <path to files> | awk '{ print $3,$4 }' | tail -n +2) ; do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ] ; then
echo "Fail"
break
else
echo "Pass"
fi
done
Now, this prints "Pass" for every file it finds. I want to print "Pass" if all files are owned by root, and print "Fail" if any user or group in list is not root.
bash shell-script
for x in $(ls -ll <path to files> | awk '{ print $3,$4 }' | tail -n +2) ; do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ] ; then
echo "Fail"
break
else
echo "Pass"
fi
done
Now, this prints "Pass" for every file it finds. I want to print "Pass" if all files are owned by root, and print "Fail" if any user or group in list is not root.
bash shell-script
bash shell-script
edited Dec 7 at 20:16
K7AAY
380319
380319
asked Dec 7 at 16:34
Caleb Hoch
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
If you want to find out if all files in your are owned by root and belong to group root, use find:
find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print
If anything is returned, that file either is not owned by root, or does not belong to the group root. You can then put that into a conditional clause to print out Pass or Fail.
[[ "$(find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print)" == "" ]] && echo "Pass" || echo "Fail"
Hope this helps.
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
add a comment |
First, you shouldn't parse the output of ls
and its variations. You can go about this using stat
:
$ stat -c%U-%G ./*
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
As you can see, the result is a reliable list of two words concatenated, which you can operate on to get the result wanted. Put it into a loop, and there you go:
PASS=true
for i in $(stat -c%U-%G ./*); do
if ! [[ "$i" == root-root ]]; then
PASS=false; break
fi
done
if "$PASS"; then
echo Pass
else
echo Fail
fi
The value of i
needs to be root-root
for the loop to get to its end with the switch unchanged.
Replace ./*
with the_dir/*
to test another location.
The -
separator is needed, because, as Grump noted in the comments, The string comparison may fail if the file is owned by 'roo' and in the group 'troot', so a separator would still be a good thing.
Familiarise yourself with this: Why *not* parse `ls` (and what do to instead)?
the hyphen-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon:
is a better choice and it's whatchown
uses too
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of%U-%G
, whileroot-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
|
show 4 more comments
How about
[ 1 = $({ echo root:root; stat -c"%U:%G" *; } | sort -u | wc -l) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
EDIT: or
[ -z $(stat -c"%U:%G" * | grep -vm1 root:root) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's-m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the-v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".
– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
add a comment |
The way I would do it is probably
found=$(find <path to files> -maxdepth 1 -not ( -user root -group root ) -printf "x")
found=${found:+Fail}
echo ${found:=Pass}
However, the simplest way of altering your script is:
found="Pass"
for x in $(ls -llA <path to files> | awk 'FNR>2{ print $3,$4 }' )
do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ]
then
found="Fail"
break
fi
done
echo $found
here I've added the A flag to catch files that begin with a "."
Doing it this way, however, is not a good idea as filenames containing a newline will cause unexpected results.
add a comment |
The output of ls
is risky in command lines. I suggest using find
for this purpose in the shellscript.
- The parameters to
find -printf
are described inman find
. - The standard output is piped to
grep
and the exit status is stored innorootfile
. - The output is also written to a temporary file, and the number of lines is counted and stored in
numfile
(the number of files found). - You can use the option
-v
'verbose' to get more details in the output from the shellscript.
If you want to search also hidden files use find .
instead of find *
If you don't want to search in subdirectories, use -maxdepth 1
in the find command line.
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" == "-h" ]
then
echo "Usage: $0 -h # this help text"
echo " $0 -v # verbose output"
exit
fi
tmpfil=$(mktemp)
find * -xtype f -printf "%u:%g %pn" | tee "$tmpfil" | grep -v '^root:root' > /dev/null
norootsfile=$?
numfile=$(wc -l "$tmpfil")
#cat "$tmpfil"
if [ ${numfile%% *} -eq 0 ]
then
echo "No file found; check the current directory"
elif [ $norootsfile -eq 0 ]
then
echo "Fail"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found some file(s) not owned or grouped by root"
echo "user:group file-name --------------------------------"
grep -v '^root:root' "$tmpfil"
fi
else
echo "Pass"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found only files owned or grouped by root"
fi
fi
rm "$tmpfil"
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486630%2fcorrect-a-test-in-a-bash-script-to-echo-only-if-every-file-found-meets-the-spec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you want to find out if all files in your are owned by root and belong to group root, use find:
find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print
If anything is returned, that file either is not owned by root, or does not belong to the group root. You can then put that into a conditional clause to print out Pass or Fail.
[[ "$(find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print)" == "" ]] && echo "Pass" || echo "Fail"
Hope this helps.
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
add a comment |
If you want to find out if all files in your are owned by root and belong to group root, use find:
find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print
If anything is returned, that file either is not owned by root, or does not belong to the group root. You can then put that into a conditional clause to print out Pass or Fail.
[[ "$(find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print)" == "" ]] && echo "Pass" || echo "Fail"
Hope this helps.
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
add a comment |
If you want to find out if all files in your are owned by root and belong to group root, use find:
find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print
If anything is returned, that file either is not owned by root, or does not belong to the group root. You can then put that into a conditional clause to print out Pass or Fail.
[[ "$(find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print)" == "" ]] && echo "Pass" || echo "Fail"
Hope this helps.
If you want to find out if all files in your are owned by root and belong to group root, use find:
find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print
If anything is returned, that file either is not owned by root, or does not belong to the group root. You can then put that into a conditional clause to print out Pass or Fail.
[[ "$(find <path to files> ! -user root -or ! -group root -print)" == "" ]] && echo "Pass" || echo "Fail"
Hope this helps.
answered Dec 7 at 16:49
Lewis M
8185
8185
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
add a comment |
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
1
1
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
possibly with a "-maxdepth 1" if recursion isn't desired
– Grump
Dec 7 at 16:50
add a comment |
First, you shouldn't parse the output of ls
and its variations. You can go about this using stat
:
$ stat -c%U-%G ./*
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
As you can see, the result is a reliable list of two words concatenated, which you can operate on to get the result wanted. Put it into a loop, and there you go:
PASS=true
for i in $(stat -c%U-%G ./*); do
if ! [[ "$i" == root-root ]]; then
PASS=false; break
fi
done
if "$PASS"; then
echo Pass
else
echo Fail
fi
The value of i
needs to be root-root
for the loop to get to its end with the switch unchanged.
Replace ./*
with the_dir/*
to test another location.
The -
separator is needed, because, as Grump noted in the comments, The string comparison may fail if the file is owned by 'roo' and in the group 'troot', so a separator would still be a good thing.
Familiarise yourself with this: Why *not* parse `ls` (and what do to instead)?
the hyphen-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon:
is a better choice and it's whatchown
uses too
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of%U-%G
, whileroot-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
|
show 4 more comments
First, you shouldn't parse the output of ls
and its variations. You can go about this using stat
:
$ stat -c%U-%G ./*
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
As you can see, the result is a reliable list of two words concatenated, which you can operate on to get the result wanted. Put it into a loop, and there you go:
PASS=true
for i in $(stat -c%U-%G ./*); do
if ! [[ "$i" == root-root ]]; then
PASS=false; break
fi
done
if "$PASS"; then
echo Pass
else
echo Fail
fi
The value of i
needs to be root-root
for the loop to get to its end with the switch unchanged.
Replace ./*
with the_dir/*
to test another location.
The -
separator is needed, because, as Grump noted in the comments, The string comparison may fail if the file is owned by 'roo' and in the group 'troot', so a separator would still be a good thing.
Familiarise yourself with this: Why *not* parse `ls` (and what do to instead)?
the hyphen-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon:
is a better choice and it's whatchown
uses too
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of%U-%G
, whileroot-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
|
show 4 more comments
First, you shouldn't parse the output of ls
and its variations. You can go about this using stat
:
$ stat -c%U-%G ./*
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
As you can see, the result is a reliable list of two words concatenated, which you can operate on to get the result wanted. Put it into a loop, and there you go:
PASS=true
for i in $(stat -c%U-%G ./*); do
if ! [[ "$i" == root-root ]]; then
PASS=false; break
fi
done
if "$PASS"; then
echo Pass
else
echo Fail
fi
The value of i
needs to be root-root
for the loop to get to its end with the switch unchanged.
Replace ./*
with the_dir/*
to test another location.
The -
separator is needed, because, as Grump noted in the comments, The string comparison may fail if the file is owned by 'roo' and in the group 'troot', so a separator would still be a good thing.
Familiarise yourself with this: Why *not* parse `ls` (and what do to instead)?
First, you shouldn't parse the output of ls
and its variations. You can go about this using stat
:
$ stat -c%U-%G ./*
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
tomasz-tomasz
As you can see, the result is a reliable list of two words concatenated, which you can operate on to get the result wanted. Put it into a loop, and there you go:
PASS=true
for i in $(stat -c%U-%G ./*); do
if ! [[ "$i" == root-root ]]; then
PASS=false; break
fi
done
if "$PASS"; then
echo Pass
else
echo Fail
fi
The value of i
needs to be root-root
for the loop to get to its end with the switch unchanged.
Replace ./*
with the_dir/*
to test another location.
The -
separator is needed, because, as Grump noted in the comments, The string comparison may fail if the file is owned by 'roo' and in the group 'troot', so a separator would still be a good thing.
Familiarise yourself with this: Why *not* parse `ls` (and what do to instead)?
edited Dec 7 at 20:20
answered Dec 7 at 17:07
Tomasz
9,19352965
9,19352965
the hyphen-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon:
is a better choice and it's whatchown
uses too
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of%U-%G
, whileroot-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
|
show 4 more comments
the hyphen-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon:
is a better choice and it's whatchown
uses too
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of%U-%G
, whileroot-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
the hyphen
-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon :
is a better choice and it's what chown
uses too– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
the hyphen
-
is a poor choice of separator since it is a legal character in usernames on at least some systems; the colon :
is a better choice and it's what chown
uses too– kbolino
Dec 7 at 22:57
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of
%U-%G
, while root-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
@kbolino But if there's one hyphen in one username, there would be two total in the product of
%U-%G
, while root-root
has only one. So they would not be equal.– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:00
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Fair enough, I don't think groups can be named the empty string.
– kbolino
Dec 7 at 23:21
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
Actually, empty group name wouldn't matter at all. The only case where the hyphen would be a problem is where the user name you're looking for has a hyphen as then user john-smith in group users would be indistinguishable from user john in group smith-users. The practical relevance of this exception is pretty low, though.
– kbolino
Dec 8 at 0:00
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
@kbolino Agreed.
– Tomasz
Dec 8 at 2:03
|
show 4 more comments
How about
[ 1 = $({ echo root:root; stat -c"%U:%G" *; } | sort -u | wc -l) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
EDIT: or
[ -z $(stat -c"%U:%G" * | grep -vm1 root:root) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's-m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the-v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".
– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
add a comment |
How about
[ 1 = $({ echo root:root; stat -c"%U:%G" *; } | sort -u | wc -l) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
EDIT: or
[ -z $(stat -c"%U:%G" * | grep -vm1 root:root) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's-m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the-v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".
– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
add a comment |
How about
[ 1 = $({ echo root:root; stat -c"%U:%G" *; } | sort -u | wc -l) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
EDIT: or
[ -z $(stat -c"%U:%G" * | grep -vm1 root:root) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
How about
[ 1 = $({ echo root:root; stat -c"%U:%G" *; } | sort -u | wc -l) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
EDIT: or
[ -z $(stat -c"%U:%G" * | grep -vm1 root:root) ] && echo PASS || echo FAIL
edited Dec 7 at 22:22
answered Dec 7 at 22:00
RudiC
4,1741312
4,1741312
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's-m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the-v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".
– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
add a comment |
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's-m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the-v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".
– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Smart, but a short-circuit break after the first fail is a big optimisation.
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 22:09
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Admitted. Added another approach that quits after first non-match.
– RudiC
Dec 7 at 22:23
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
Non-match of what? Is it not the same thing?
– Tomasz
Dec 7 at 23:02
grep
's -m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the -v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
grep
's -m1
option makes it leave after the first match (due to the -v
: non-match), i.e. the first line not matching "root:root".– RudiC
Dec 8 at 12:35
add a comment |
The way I would do it is probably
found=$(find <path to files> -maxdepth 1 -not ( -user root -group root ) -printf "x")
found=${found:+Fail}
echo ${found:=Pass}
However, the simplest way of altering your script is:
found="Pass"
for x in $(ls -llA <path to files> | awk 'FNR>2{ print $3,$4 }' )
do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ]
then
found="Fail"
break
fi
done
echo $found
here I've added the A flag to catch files that begin with a "."
Doing it this way, however, is not a good idea as filenames containing a newline will cause unexpected results.
add a comment |
The way I would do it is probably
found=$(find <path to files> -maxdepth 1 -not ( -user root -group root ) -printf "x")
found=${found:+Fail}
echo ${found:=Pass}
However, the simplest way of altering your script is:
found="Pass"
for x in $(ls -llA <path to files> | awk 'FNR>2{ print $3,$4 }' )
do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ]
then
found="Fail"
break
fi
done
echo $found
here I've added the A flag to catch files that begin with a "."
Doing it this way, however, is not a good idea as filenames containing a newline will cause unexpected results.
add a comment |
The way I would do it is probably
found=$(find <path to files> -maxdepth 1 -not ( -user root -group root ) -printf "x")
found=${found:+Fail}
echo ${found:=Pass}
However, the simplest way of altering your script is:
found="Pass"
for x in $(ls -llA <path to files> | awk 'FNR>2{ print $3,$4 }' )
do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ]
then
found="Fail"
break
fi
done
echo $found
here I've added the A flag to catch files that begin with a "."
Doing it this way, however, is not a good idea as filenames containing a newline will cause unexpected results.
The way I would do it is probably
found=$(find <path to files> -maxdepth 1 -not ( -user root -group root ) -printf "x")
found=${found:+Fail}
echo ${found:=Pass}
However, the simplest way of altering your script is:
found="Pass"
for x in $(ls -llA <path to files> | awk 'FNR>2{ print $3,$4 }' )
do
if [ "${x}" != "root" ]
then
found="Fail"
break
fi
done
echo $found
here I've added the A flag to catch files that begin with a "."
Doing it this way, however, is not a good idea as filenames containing a newline will cause unexpected results.
edited Dec 7 at 17:54
answered Dec 7 at 16:56
Grump
1665
1665
add a comment |
add a comment |
The output of ls
is risky in command lines. I suggest using find
for this purpose in the shellscript.
- The parameters to
find -printf
are described inman find
. - The standard output is piped to
grep
and the exit status is stored innorootfile
. - The output is also written to a temporary file, and the number of lines is counted and stored in
numfile
(the number of files found). - You can use the option
-v
'verbose' to get more details in the output from the shellscript.
If you want to search also hidden files use find .
instead of find *
If you don't want to search in subdirectories, use -maxdepth 1
in the find command line.
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" == "-h" ]
then
echo "Usage: $0 -h # this help text"
echo " $0 -v # verbose output"
exit
fi
tmpfil=$(mktemp)
find * -xtype f -printf "%u:%g %pn" | tee "$tmpfil" | grep -v '^root:root' > /dev/null
norootsfile=$?
numfile=$(wc -l "$tmpfil")
#cat "$tmpfil"
if [ ${numfile%% *} -eq 0 ]
then
echo "No file found; check the current directory"
elif [ $norootsfile -eq 0 ]
then
echo "Fail"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found some file(s) not owned or grouped by root"
echo "user:group file-name --------------------------------"
grep -v '^root:root' "$tmpfil"
fi
else
echo "Pass"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found only files owned or grouped by root"
fi
fi
rm "$tmpfil"
add a comment |
The output of ls
is risky in command lines. I suggest using find
for this purpose in the shellscript.
- The parameters to
find -printf
are described inman find
. - The standard output is piped to
grep
and the exit status is stored innorootfile
. - The output is also written to a temporary file, and the number of lines is counted and stored in
numfile
(the number of files found). - You can use the option
-v
'verbose' to get more details in the output from the shellscript.
If you want to search also hidden files use find .
instead of find *
If you don't want to search in subdirectories, use -maxdepth 1
in the find command line.
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" == "-h" ]
then
echo "Usage: $0 -h # this help text"
echo " $0 -v # verbose output"
exit
fi
tmpfil=$(mktemp)
find * -xtype f -printf "%u:%g %pn" | tee "$tmpfil" | grep -v '^root:root' > /dev/null
norootsfile=$?
numfile=$(wc -l "$tmpfil")
#cat "$tmpfil"
if [ ${numfile%% *} -eq 0 ]
then
echo "No file found; check the current directory"
elif [ $norootsfile -eq 0 ]
then
echo "Fail"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found some file(s) not owned or grouped by root"
echo "user:group file-name --------------------------------"
grep -v '^root:root' "$tmpfil"
fi
else
echo "Pass"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found only files owned or grouped by root"
fi
fi
rm "$tmpfil"
add a comment |
The output of ls
is risky in command lines. I suggest using find
for this purpose in the shellscript.
- The parameters to
find -printf
are described inman find
. - The standard output is piped to
grep
and the exit status is stored innorootfile
. - The output is also written to a temporary file, and the number of lines is counted and stored in
numfile
(the number of files found). - You can use the option
-v
'verbose' to get more details in the output from the shellscript.
If you want to search also hidden files use find .
instead of find *
If you don't want to search in subdirectories, use -maxdepth 1
in the find command line.
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" == "-h" ]
then
echo "Usage: $0 -h # this help text"
echo " $0 -v # verbose output"
exit
fi
tmpfil=$(mktemp)
find * -xtype f -printf "%u:%g %pn" | tee "$tmpfil" | grep -v '^root:root' > /dev/null
norootsfile=$?
numfile=$(wc -l "$tmpfil")
#cat "$tmpfil"
if [ ${numfile%% *} -eq 0 ]
then
echo "No file found; check the current directory"
elif [ $norootsfile -eq 0 ]
then
echo "Fail"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found some file(s) not owned or grouped by root"
echo "user:group file-name --------------------------------"
grep -v '^root:root' "$tmpfil"
fi
else
echo "Pass"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found only files owned or grouped by root"
fi
fi
rm "$tmpfil"
The output of ls
is risky in command lines. I suggest using find
for this purpose in the shellscript.
- The parameters to
find -printf
are described inman find
. - The standard output is piped to
grep
and the exit status is stored innorootfile
. - The output is also written to a temporary file, and the number of lines is counted and stored in
numfile
(the number of files found). - You can use the option
-v
'verbose' to get more details in the output from the shellscript.
If you want to search also hidden files use find .
instead of find *
If you don't want to search in subdirectories, use -maxdepth 1
in the find command line.
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" == "-h" ]
then
echo "Usage: $0 -h # this help text"
echo " $0 -v # verbose output"
exit
fi
tmpfil=$(mktemp)
find * -xtype f -printf "%u:%g %pn" | tee "$tmpfil" | grep -v '^root:root' > /dev/null
norootsfile=$?
numfile=$(wc -l "$tmpfil")
#cat "$tmpfil"
if [ ${numfile%% *} -eq 0 ]
then
echo "No file found; check the current directory"
elif [ $norootsfile -eq 0 ]
then
echo "Fail"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found some file(s) not owned or grouped by root"
echo "user:group file-name --------------------------------"
grep -v '^root:root' "$tmpfil"
fi
else
echo "Pass"
if [ "$1" == "-v" ]
then
echo "----- Found only files owned or grouped by root"
fi
fi
rm "$tmpfil"
edited Dec 7 at 22:26
answered Dec 7 at 22:20
sudodus
1,05116
1,05116
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f486630%2fcorrect-a-test-in-a-bash-script-to-echo-only-if-every-file-found-meets-the-spec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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