Przejdź do treści

As part of your code, you may be inclined to call a command to do something. But is it always a good idea? How to do it safely? What happens behind the scenes?

This article is written from a general perspective, with a Unix/C bias and a very slight Python bias. The problems mentioned apply to all languages in most environments, including Windows.

Use the right tool for the job

By calling another process, you introduce a third-party dependency. That dependency isn’t controlled by your code, and your code becomes more fragile. The problems include:

  • the program is not installed, or even available, for the user’s OS of choice
  • the program is not in the $PATH your process gets
  • the hard-coded path is not correct on the end user’s system
  • the program is in a different version (eg. GNU vs. BSD, updates/patches), which means different option names or other behaviors
  • the program’s output is not what you expected due to user config (including locale)
  • error reporting is based on numeric exit codes, and the meaning of those differs between programs (if they have meaning besides 0/1 in the first place)

On the other hand, if your code uses a lot of subprocesses, perhaps you should stay with Bash. You can do the harder parts with Python, Ruby, or some other language by calling them from within your Bash script.

Don’t spawn subprocesses if there’s an alternative

Spawning a subprocess always incurs a (minor) [1] performance hit minor compared to the alternatives. With that in mind, and the resiliency issues listed above, you should always try to find an alternative for the external command.

The simplest ones are the basic Unix utilities. Replace grep, sed and awk with string operations and regular expressions. Filesystem utilities will have equivalents — for Python, in os or shutil. Your language of choice can also handle things like networking (don’t call curl), file compression, working with date/time…

Similarly, you should check if there are packages available that already do what you want — library bindings or re-implementations. And if there isn’t, perhaps you could help the world by writing one of those and sharing it?

One more important thing: if the program uses the same language as your code, then you should try to import the code and run it from the same process instead of spawning a process, if this is feasible.

Security considerations: shells, spaces, and command injection

We come to the most important part of this article: how to spawn subprocesses without compromising your system. When you spawn a subprocess on a typical Unix system, fork() is called, and your process is copied. Many modern Unix systems have a copy-on-write implementation of that syscall, meaning that the operation does not result in copying all the memory of the host process over. Forking is (almost) immediately followed by calling execve() (or a helper function from the exec family) [2] in the child process — that function transforms the calling process into a new process [3]. This technique is called fork-exec and is the typical way to spawn a new process on Unix. [4]

There are two ways to access this API, from the C perspective:

  • directly, by calling fork() and exec*() (or posix_spawn()), and providing an array of arguments passed to the process, or

  • through the shell (sh), usually by calling system(). As Linux’s manpage for system(3) puts it,

    The system() library function uses fork(2) to create a child process that executes the shell command specified in command using execl(3) as follows:

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

If you go through the shell, you pass one string argument, whereas exec*() demands you to specify arguments separately. Let’s write a sample program to print all the arguments it receives. I’ll do it in Python to get a more readable output.

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import sys

Let’s see what appears:

$ ./ foo bar
['./', 'foo', 'bar']
$ ./ 'foo bar'
['./', 'foo bar']
$ ./ foo\ bar baz
['./', 'foo bar', 'baz']

$ ./ $(date)
['./', 'Sat', 'Sep', '2', '16:54:52', 'CEST', '2017']
$ ./ "$(date)"
['./', 'Sat Sep  2 16:54:52 CEST 2017']

$ ./ /usr/*
['./', '/usr/X11', '/usr/X11R6', '/usr/bin', '/usr/include', '/usr/lib', '/usr/libexec', '/usr/local', '/usr/sbin', '/usr/share', '/usr/standalone']
$ ./ "/usr/*"
['./', '/usr/*']

$ ./ $EDITOR
['./', 'nvim']

$ $PWD/ foo bar
['/Users/kwpolska/Desktop/blog/subprocess/', 'foo', 'bar']
$ ./ a{b,c}d
['./', 'abd', 'acd']

$ python foo bar | cat
['', 'foo', 'bar']
$ python foo bar > foo.txt
$ cat foo.txt
['', 'foo', 'bar']

$ ./ foo; ls /usr
['./', 'foo']
[email protected]        [email protected]      bin/        include/    lib/        libexec/    local/      sbin/       share/      standalone/

As you can see, the following things are handled by the shell (the process is unaware of this occurring):

  • quotes and escapes
  • expanding expressions in braces
  • expanding variables
  • wildcards (glob, *)
  • redirections and pipes (> >> |)
  • command substitution (backticks or $(…))
  • running multiple commands on the same line (; && || &)

The list is full of potential vulnerabilities. If end users are in control of the arguments passed, and you go through the shell, they can execute arbitrary commands or even get full shell access. Even in other cases, you’ll have to depend on the shell’s parsing, which introduces an unnecessary indirection.

TL;DR: How to do this properly in your language of choice

To ensure spawning subprocess is done securely, do not use the shell in between. If you need any of the operations I listed above as part of your command — wildcards, pipes, etc. — you will need to take care of them in your code; most languages have those features built-in.

In C (Unix)
Perform fork-exec by yourself, or use posix_spawn(). This also lets you communicate with the process if you open a pipe and make it stdout of the child process. Never use system().
In Python
Use the subprocess module. Always pass shell=False and give it a list of arguments. With asyncio, use asyncio.create_subprocess_exec (and not _shell), but note it takes *args and not a list. Never use os.system and os.popen.
In Ruby
Pass arrays to IO.popen. Pass multiple arguments to system() (system(["ls", "ls"]) or system("ls", "-l")). Never use %x{command} or backticks.
In Java
Pass arrays to Runtime.exec. Pass multiple arguments or list to ProcessBuilder.
All the standard methods go through the shell. Try escapeshellcmd(), escapeshellarg() — or better, switch to Python. Or anything, really.
In Go
os/exec and os.StartProcess are safe.
In Node.js
Use child_process.execFile or child_process.spawn with shell set to false.
You should be able to specify multiple strings (using variadic arguments, arrays, or otherwise standard data structures of your language of choice) as the command line. Otherwise, you might be running into something shell-related.

The part where I pretend I know something about Windows

On Windows, argument lists are always passed to processes as strings (Python joins them semi-intelligently if it gets a list). Redirections and variables work in shell mode, but globs (asterisks) are always left for the called process to handle.

Some useful functions are implemented as shell built-ins — in that case, you need to call it via the shell.

Internals: There is no fork() on Windows. Instead, CreateProcess(), ShellExecute(), or lower-level spawn*() functions are used. cmd.exe /c is called in shell calls.

[1] Unless your operating system does not implement copy-on-write forking — in that case, you might even run out of memory if you use too much of it.
[2] The function that does the real work is execve(), which takes an exact path, an array of arguments, and takes environment variables as input. Other variants can also perform a $PATH search, take argv as variadic arguments, and inherit environment from the current process. execl() does the last two.
[3] Quoted from execve(2) man page from FreeBSD.
[4] An alternative is posix_spawn(), but it usually does fork-exec, unless your platform does not support forking.


Comments powered by Disqus