views:

49

answers:

2

Let's say I have a shell script that runs a bunch of other sub-scripts. I decide that my script must be run as root because the first several sub-scripts that it runs need to be run as root. However, there are two sub-scripts run by the super-script that cannot be run as root. Assuming my script was run as root, how do I de-root it for the last two sub-scripts? Is this even possible?

+1  A: 

use su to run a command you want to run as some other user.

su nobody ls /tmp
nsayer
This isn't necessarily wrong, but the odds are that the sub-script needs to write the file system, at which point (AIUI) one must not use `nobody`.
Zack
He wasn't nearly that specific. He asked how to run a script as a non-root user. I answered. I provided an example. Sheesh.
nsayer
I don't mean to be a pill, but I jump on examples that casually use `nobody` because misusing `nobody` opens security holes.
Zack
+3  A: 

You need a specific non-root user that your sub-scripts can run under. Let us call that user fred. Then your script with root privileges can simply do

su fred /path/to/subscript-A
su fred /path/to/subscript-B

Contra nsayer's answer, you probably can NOT use nobody for this, because the entire point of nobody is that it has write privileges on nothing. Sometimes that's exactly what you want, but I'm betting your sub-scripts need to write to the file system...

Zack
The point Zack is getting at is that the user must be a 'human' user with a shell to do anything useful, so for example `nobody` or `www-data` won't work. It's a good point, but it's not necessary to `su fred (some command)` every time... just `su fred`, then issue any commands as fred in separate commands, then `exit`.
no
@no: That only works if you have an interactive shell; from within a script, you have to give `su fred` a command. You can of course wrap up a bunch of commands in a sub-script and pass that to `su`, but it sounds like the OP has already done that. Also, fyi, `su -s /bin/sh fred -- -c exec /path/to/subscript` will work even if `fred` has no shell in `/etc/passwd`, and you may prefer to have `fred` that way if that account is only ever used from the script (which is probably a good idea)
Zack
Zack, thanks for clearing that up :)
no