Temporary folder that automatically destroyed after process exit











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
3












Can we use temporary folders like temporary files



TMP=$(mktemp ... )
exec 3<>$TMP
rm $TMP

cat <&3


which will be destroyed automatically after this shell exit?










share|improve this question






















  • Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:09















up vote
10
down vote

favorite
3












Can we use temporary folders like temporary files



TMP=$(mktemp ... )
exec 3<>$TMP
rm $TMP

cat <&3


which will be destroyed automatically after this shell exit?










share|improve this question






















  • Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:09













up vote
10
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
3






3





Can we use temporary folders like temporary files



TMP=$(mktemp ... )
exec 3<>$TMP
rm $TMP

cat <&3


which will be destroyed automatically after this shell exit?










share|improve this question













Can we use temporary folders like temporary files



TMP=$(mktemp ... )
exec 3<>$TMP
rm $TMP

cat <&3


which will be destroyed automatically after this shell exit?







file-descriptors tmpfs






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 7 at 10:44









Bob Johnson

694




694












  • Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:09


















  • Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:09
















Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
– Stéphane Chazelas
Nov 8 at 8:09




Related: exit trap in dash vs ksh and bash
– Stéphane Chazelas
Nov 8 at 8:09










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote













In the case of a temporary file, your example in the question would create it, then unlink it from the directory (making it "disappear"), and when the script closes the filedescriptor (probably upon termination), the space taken by the file would be reclaimable by the system. This is a common way to deal with temporary files in languages like C.



It is, as far as I know, not possible to open a directory in the same way, at least not in any way that would make the directory usable.



A common way to delete temporary files and directories at the termination of a script is by installing a cleanup EXIT trap. The code examples given below avoids having to juggle filedescriptors completely.



tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
tmpfile=$(mktemp)

trap 'rm -f "$tmpfile"; rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT

# The rest of the script goes here.


Or you may call a cleanup function:



cleanup () {
rm -f "$tmpfile"
rm -rf "$tmpdir"
}

tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
tmpfile=$(mktemp)

trap cleanup EXIT

# The rest of the script goes here.


The EXIT trap won't be executed upon receiving the KILL signal (which can't be trapped), which means that there will be no cleanup performed then. It will however execute when terminating due to an INT or TERM signal (if running with bash or ksh, in other shells you may want to add these signals after EXIT in the trap command line), or when exiting normally due to arriving at the end of the script or executing an exit call.






share|improve this answer



















  • 5




    It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
    – derobert
    Nov 7 at 18:04






  • 1




    @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
    – kasperd
    Nov 7 at 19:03










  • unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
    – JdeBP
    Nov 8 at 0:07










  • @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 7:38






  • 1




    Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:01


















up vote
6
down vote













Write a shell-function that will be executed when your script if finished. In the example below I call it 'cleanup' and set a trap to be executed on exit levels, like: 0 1 2 3 6



trap cleanup 0 1 2 3 6

cleanup()
{
[ -d $TMP ] && rm -rf $TMP
}


See this post for more info.






share|improve this answer























  • Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
    – mosvy
    Nov 8 at 13:43




















up vote
6
down vote













You can chdir into it and then remove it, provided that you don't try to use paths inside it afterwards:



#! /bin/sh
dir=`mktemp -d`
cd "$dir"
exec 4>file 3<file
rm -fr "$dir"

echo yes >&4 # OK
cat <&3 # OK

cat file # FAIL
echo yes > file # FAIL


I haven't checked, but it's most probably the same problem when using openat(2) in C with a directory that no longer exists in the file system.



If you're root and on Linux, you can play with a separate namespace, and mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /dir inside it.



The canonical answers (set a trap on EXIT) don't work if your script is forced into an unclean exit (eg. with SIGKILL); that may leave sensitive data hanging around.



Update:



Here is a small utility which implements the namespace approach. It should be compiled with



cc -Wall -Os -s chtmp.c -o chtmp


and given CAP_SYS_ADMIN file capabilities (as root) with



setcap CAP_SYS_ADMIN+ep chtmp


When run (as a normal) user as



./chtmp command args ...


it will unshare its filesystem namespace, mount a tmpfs filesystem on /proc/sysvipc, chdir into it and run command with the given arguments. command will not inherit the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.



That filesystem will not be accessible from another process not started from command, and it will magically disappear (with all the files that were created inside it) when command and its children die, no matter how that happens. Notice that this is just unsharing the mount namespace -- there are no hard barriers between command and other processes run by the same user; they could still sneak inside its namespace either via ptrace(2), /proc/PID/cwd or by other means.



The hijacking of the "useless" /proc/sysvipc is, of course silly, but the alternative would've been to spam /tmp with empty directories that would have to be removed or greatly complicate this small program with forks and waits. Alternatively, dir can be changed to eg. /mnt/chtmp and have it created by root at installation; do not make it user-configurable and do not set it to a user-owned path as that may expose you to symlink traps and other hairy stuff not worth spending time on.



chtmp.c



#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <err.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/mount.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv){
char *dir = "/proc/sysvipc"; /* LOL */
if(argc < 2 || !argv[1]) errx(1, "usage: %s prog args ...", *argv);
argv++;
if(unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)) err(1, "unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)");
/* "modern" systemd remounts all mount points MS_SHARED
see the NOTES in mount_namespaces(7); YUCK */
if(mount("none", "/", 0, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE, 0))
err(1, "mount(/, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE)");
if(mount("tmpfs", dir, "tmpfs", 0, 0)) err(1, "mount(tmpfs, %s)", dir);
if(chdir(dir)) err(1, "chdir %s", dir);
execvp(*argv, argv);
err(1, "execvp %s", *argv);
}





share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
    – R..
    Nov 7 at 23:50










  • That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 0:10






  • 1




    Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
    – R..
    Nov 8 at 0:15












  • I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
    – Bob Johnson
    Nov 8 at 1:12










  • @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 2:06


















up vote
0
down vote













Do you require a specific shell?



If zsh is an option, please read zshexpn(1):




If =(...) is used instead of <(...), then the file passed as an argument will be the name of a temporary file containing the output of the list process. This may be used instead of the < form for a program that expects to lseek (see lseek(2)) on the input file.



[...]



Another problem arises any time a job with a substitution that requires a temporary file is disowned by the shell, including the case where &! or &| appears at the end of a command containing a substitution. In that case the temporary file will not be cleaned up as the shell no longer has any memory of the job. A workaround is to use a subshell, for example,



(mycmd =(myoutput)) &!


as the forked subshell will wait for the command to finish then remove the temporary file.



A general workaround to ensure a process substitution endures for an appropriate length of time is to pass it as a parameter to an anonymous shell function (a piece of shell code that is run immediately with function scope). For example, this code:



() {
print File $1:
cat $1
} =(print This be the verse)


outputs something resembling the following



File /tmp/zsh6nU0kS:
This be the verse



For example I use this in rifle (part of the ranger file manager) to decrypt a file and then run rifle on the temporary file, which gets deleted when the subproces terminates. (don't forget to set $TERMCMD)



# ~/.config/ranger/rifle.conf
...
!ext exe, mime octet-stream$, has gpg, flag t = () { rifle -f F "$1" } =(gpg -dq "$1")





share|improve this answer





















    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',
    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


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480330%2ftemporary-folder-that-automatically-destroyed-after-process-exit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    13
    down vote













    In the case of a temporary file, your example in the question would create it, then unlink it from the directory (making it "disappear"), and when the script closes the filedescriptor (probably upon termination), the space taken by the file would be reclaimable by the system. This is a common way to deal with temporary files in languages like C.



    It is, as far as I know, not possible to open a directory in the same way, at least not in any way that would make the directory usable.



    A common way to delete temporary files and directories at the termination of a script is by installing a cleanup EXIT trap. The code examples given below avoids having to juggle filedescriptors completely.



    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap 'rm -f "$tmpfile"; rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    Or you may call a cleanup function:



    cleanup () {
    rm -f "$tmpfile"
    rm -rf "$tmpdir"
    }

    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap cleanup EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    The EXIT trap won't be executed upon receiving the KILL signal (which can't be trapped), which means that there will be no cleanup performed then. It will however execute when terminating due to an INT or TERM signal (if running with bash or ksh, in other shells you may want to add these signals after EXIT in the trap command line), or when exiting normally due to arriving at the end of the script or executing an exit call.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 5




      It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
      – derobert
      Nov 7 at 18:04






    • 1




      @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
      – kasperd
      Nov 7 at 19:03










    • unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
      – JdeBP
      Nov 8 at 0:07










    • @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 7:38






    • 1




      Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 8:01















    up vote
    13
    down vote













    In the case of a temporary file, your example in the question would create it, then unlink it from the directory (making it "disappear"), and when the script closes the filedescriptor (probably upon termination), the space taken by the file would be reclaimable by the system. This is a common way to deal with temporary files in languages like C.



    It is, as far as I know, not possible to open a directory in the same way, at least not in any way that would make the directory usable.



    A common way to delete temporary files and directories at the termination of a script is by installing a cleanup EXIT trap. The code examples given below avoids having to juggle filedescriptors completely.



    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap 'rm -f "$tmpfile"; rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    Or you may call a cleanup function:



    cleanup () {
    rm -f "$tmpfile"
    rm -rf "$tmpdir"
    }

    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap cleanup EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    The EXIT trap won't be executed upon receiving the KILL signal (which can't be trapped), which means that there will be no cleanup performed then. It will however execute when terminating due to an INT or TERM signal (if running with bash or ksh, in other shells you may want to add these signals after EXIT in the trap command line), or when exiting normally due to arriving at the end of the script or executing an exit call.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 5




      It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
      – derobert
      Nov 7 at 18:04






    • 1




      @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
      – kasperd
      Nov 7 at 19:03










    • unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
      – JdeBP
      Nov 8 at 0:07










    • @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 7:38






    • 1




      Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 8:01













    up vote
    13
    down vote










    up vote
    13
    down vote









    In the case of a temporary file, your example in the question would create it, then unlink it from the directory (making it "disappear"), and when the script closes the filedescriptor (probably upon termination), the space taken by the file would be reclaimable by the system. This is a common way to deal with temporary files in languages like C.



    It is, as far as I know, not possible to open a directory in the same way, at least not in any way that would make the directory usable.



    A common way to delete temporary files and directories at the termination of a script is by installing a cleanup EXIT trap. The code examples given below avoids having to juggle filedescriptors completely.



    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap 'rm -f "$tmpfile"; rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    Or you may call a cleanup function:



    cleanup () {
    rm -f "$tmpfile"
    rm -rf "$tmpdir"
    }

    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap cleanup EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    The EXIT trap won't be executed upon receiving the KILL signal (which can't be trapped), which means that there will be no cleanup performed then. It will however execute when terminating due to an INT or TERM signal (if running with bash or ksh, in other shells you may want to add these signals after EXIT in the trap command line), or when exiting normally due to arriving at the end of the script or executing an exit call.






    share|improve this answer














    In the case of a temporary file, your example in the question would create it, then unlink it from the directory (making it "disappear"), and when the script closes the filedescriptor (probably upon termination), the space taken by the file would be reclaimable by the system. This is a common way to deal with temporary files in languages like C.



    It is, as far as I know, not possible to open a directory in the same way, at least not in any way that would make the directory usable.



    A common way to delete temporary files and directories at the termination of a script is by installing a cleanup EXIT trap. The code examples given below avoids having to juggle filedescriptors completely.



    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap 'rm -f "$tmpfile"; rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    Or you may call a cleanup function:



    cleanup () {
    rm -f "$tmpfile"
    rm -rf "$tmpdir"
    }

    tmpdir=$(mktemp -d)
    tmpfile=$(mktemp)

    trap cleanup EXIT

    # The rest of the script goes here.


    The EXIT trap won't be executed upon receiving the KILL signal (which can't be trapped), which means that there will be no cleanup performed then. It will however execute when terminating due to an INT or TERM signal (if running with bash or ksh, in other shells you may want to add these signals after EXIT in the trap command line), or when exiting normally due to arriving at the end of the script or executing an exit call.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 8 at 7:47

























    answered Nov 7 at 11:06









    Kusalananda

    116k15218352




    116k15218352








    • 5




      It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
      – derobert
      Nov 7 at 18:04






    • 1




      @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
      – kasperd
      Nov 7 at 19:03










    • unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
      – JdeBP
      Nov 8 at 0:07










    • @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 7:38






    • 1




      Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 8:01














    • 5




      It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
      – derobert
      Nov 7 at 18:04






    • 1




      @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
      – kasperd
      Nov 7 at 19:03










    • unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
      – JdeBP
      Nov 8 at 0:07










    • @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 7:38






    • 1




      Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
      – Stéphane Chazelas
      Nov 8 at 8:01








    5




    5




    It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
    – derobert
    Nov 7 at 18:04




    It's not just shell that can't use already-unlinked temporary directories — neither can C programs. Problem is that unlinked directories can't have files in them. You can have an unlinked empty directory as your working directory, but any attempt to create a file will give an error.
    – derobert
    Nov 7 at 18:04




    1




    1




    @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
    – kasperd
    Nov 7 at 19:03




    @derobert And such an unlinked directory does not even have the . and .. entries. (Tested on Linux, I don't know if that's consistent across platforms.)
    – kasperd
    Nov 7 at 19:03












    unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
    – JdeBP
    Nov 8 at 0:07




    unix.stackexchange.com/a/434437/5132
    – JdeBP
    Nov 8 at 0:07












    @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 7:38




    @JdeBP, SE Comment Link Helper
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 7:38




    1




    1




    Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:01




    Note that the EXIT trap is not executed either if the script calls exec another-command obviously.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Nov 8 at 8:01












    up vote
    6
    down vote













    Write a shell-function that will be executed when your script if finished. In the example below I call it 'cleanup' and set a trap to be executed on exit levels, like: 0 1 2 3 6



    trap cleanup 0 1 2 3 6

    cleanup()
    {
    [ -d $TMP ] && rm -rf $TMP
    }


    See this post for more info.






    share|improve this answer























    • Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
      – mosvy
      Nov 8 at 13:43

















    up vote
    6
    down vote













    Write a shell-function that will be executed when your script if finished. In the example below I call it 'cleanup' and set a trap to be executed on exit levels, like: 0 1 2 3 6



    trap cleanup 0 1 2 3 6

    cleanup()
    {
    [ -d $TMP ] && rm -rf $TMP
    }


    See this post for more info.






    share|improve this answer























    • Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
      – mosvy
      Nov 8 at 13:43















    up vote
    6
    down vote










    up vote
    6
    down vote









    Write a shell-function that will be executed when your script if finished. In the example below I call it 'cleanup' and set a trap to be executed on exit levels, like: 0 1 2 3 6



    trap cleanup 0 1 2 3 6

    cleanup()
    {
    [ -d $TMP ] && rm -rf $TMP
    }


    See this post for more info.






    share|improve this answer














    Write a shell-function that will be executed when your script if finished. In the example below I call it 'cleanup' and set a trap to be executed on exit levels, like: 0 1 2 3 6



    trap cleanup 0 1 2 3 6

    cleanup()
    {
    [ -d $TMP ] && rm -rf $TMP
    }


    See this post for more info.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 7 at 13:42

























    answered Nov 7 at 10:57









    Dirk Krijgsman

    5246




    5246












    • Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
      – mosvy
      Nov 8 at 13:43




















    • Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
      – mosvy
      Nov 8 at 13:43


















    Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
    – mosvy
    Nov 8 at 13:43






    Those are not "exit levels" but signal numbers, and the answer to question you're linking to explains just that. The trap will run cleanup before a clean exit (0) and on receiving SIGHUP(1), SIGINT(2), SIGQUIT(3) and SIGABRT(6). it will not run cleanup when the script exits because of SIGTERM, SIGSEGV, SIGKILL, SIGPIPE, etc. This is clearly deficient.
    – mosvy
    Nov 8 at 13:43












    up vote
    6
    down vote













    You can chdir into it and then remove it, provided that you don't try to use paths inside it afterwards:



    #! /bin/sh
    dir=`mktemp -d`
    cd "$dir"
    exec 4>file 3<file
    rm -fr "$dir"

    echo yes >&4 # OK
    cat <&3 # OK

    cat file # FAIL
    echo yes > file # FAIL


    I haven't checked, but it's most probably the same problem when using openat(2) in C with a directory that no longer exists in the file system.



    If you're root and on Linux, you can play with a separate namespace, and mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /dir inside it.



    The canonical answers (set a trap on EXIT) don't work if your script is forced into an unclean exit (eg. with SIGKILL); that may leave sensitive data hanging around.



    Update:



    Here is a small utility which implements the namespace approach. It should be compiled with



    cc -Wall -Os -s chtmp.c -o chtmp


    and given CAP_SYS_ADMIN file capabilities (as root) with



    setcap CAP_SYS_ADMIN+ep chtmp


    When run (as a normal) user as



    ./chtmp command args ...


    it will unshare its filesystem namespace, mount a tmpfs filesystem on /proc/sysvipc, chdir into it and run command with the given arguments. command will not inherit the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.



    That filesystem will not be accessible from another process not started from command, and it will magically disappear (with all the files that were created inside it) when command and its children die, no matter how that happens. Notice that this is just unsharing the mount namespace -- there are no hard barriers between command and other processes run by the same user; they could still sneak inside its namespace either via ptrace(2), /proc/PID/cwd or by other means.



    The hijacking of the "useless" /proc/sysvipc is, of course silly, but the alternative would've been to spam /tmp with empty directories that would have to be removed or greatly complicate this small program with forks and waits. Alternatively, dir can be changed to eg. /mnt/chtmp and have it created by root at installation; do not make it user-configurable and do not set it to a user-owned path as that may expose you to symlink traps and other hairy stuff not worth spending time on.



    chtmp.c



    #define _GNU_SOURCE
    #include <err.h>
    #include <sched.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/mount.h>
    int main(int argc, char **argv){
    char *dir = "/proc/sysvipc"; /* LOL */
    if(argc < 2 || !argv[1]) errx(1, "usage: %s prog args ...", *argv);
    argv++;
    if(unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)) err(1, "unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)");
    /* "modern" systemd remounts all mount points MS_SHARED
    see the NOTES in mount_namespaces(7); YUCK */
    if(mount("none", "/", 0, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE, 0))
    err(1, "mount(/, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE)");
    if(mount("tmpfs", dir, "tmpfs", 0, 0)) err(1, "mount(tmpfs, %s)", dir);
    if(chdir(dir)) err(1, "chdir %s", dir);
    execvp(*argv, argv);
    err(1, "execvp %s", *argv);
    }





    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
      – R..
      Nov 7 at 23:50










    • That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 0:10






    • 1




      Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
      – R..
      Nov 8 at 0:15












    • I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
      – Bob Johnson
      Nov 8 at 1:12










    • @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 2:06















    up vote
    6
    down vote













    You can chdir into it and then remove it, provided that you don't try to use paths inside it afterwards:



    #! /bin/sh
    dir=`mktemp -d`
    cd "$dir"
    exec 4>file 3<file
    rm -fr "$dir"

    echo yes >&4 # OK
    cat <&3 # OK

    cat file # FAIL
    echo yes > file # FAIL


    I haven't checked, but it's most probably the same problem when using openat(2) in C with a directory that no longer exists in the file system.



    If you're root and on Linux, you can play with a separate namespace, and mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /dir inside it.



    The canonical answers (set a trap on EXIT) don't work if your script is forced into an unclean exit (eg. with SIGKILL); that may leave sensitive data hanging around.



    Update:



    Here is a small utility which implements the namespace approach. It should be compiled with



    cc -Wall -Os -s chtmp.c -o chtmp


    and given CAP_SYS_ADMIN file capabilities (as root) with



    setcap CAP_SYS_ADMIN+ep chtmp


    When run (as a normal) user as



    ./chtmp command args ...


    it will unshare its filesystem namespace, mount a tmpfs filesystem on /proc/sysvipc, chdir into it and run command with the given arguments. command will not inherit the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.



    That filesystem will not be accessible from another process not started from command, and it will magically disappear (with all the files that were created inside it) when command and its children die, no matter how that happens. Notice that this is just unsharing the mount namespace -- there are no hard barriers between command and other processes run by the same user; they could still sneak inside its namespace either via ptrace(2), /proc/PID/cwd or by other means.



    The hijacking of the "useless" /proc/sysvipc is, of course silly, but the alternative would've been to spam /tmp with empty directories that would have to be removed or greatly complicate this small program with forks and waits. Alternatively, dir can be changed to eg. /mnt/chtmp and have it created by root at installation; do not make it user-configurable and do not set it to a user-owned path as that may expose you to symlink traps and other hairy stuff not worth spending time on.



    chtmp.c



    #define _GNU_SOURCE
    #include <err.h>
    #include <sched.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/mount.h>
    int main(int argc, char **argv){
    char *dir = "/proc/sysvipc"; /* LOL */
    if(argc < 2 || !argv[1]) errx(1, "usage: %s prog args ...", *argv);
    argv++;
    if(unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)) err(1, "unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)");
    /* "modern" systemd remounts all mount points MS_SHARED
    see the NOTES in mount_namespaces(7); YUCK */
    if(mount("none", "/", 0, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE, 0))
    err(1, "mount(/, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE)");
    if(mount("tmpfs", dir, "tmpfs", 0, 0)) err(1, "mount(tmpfs, %s)", dir);
    if(chdir(dir)) err(1, "chdir %s", dir);
    execvp(*argv, argv);
    err(1, "execvp %s", *argv);
    }





    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
      – R..
      Nov 7 at 23:50










    • That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 0:10






    • 1




      Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
      – R..
      Nov 8 at 0:15












    • I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
      – Bob Johnson
      Nov 8 at 1:12










    • @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 2:06













    up vote
    6
    down vote










    up vote
    6
    down vote









    You can chdir into it and then remove it, provided that you don't try to use paths inside it afterwards:



    #! /bin/sh
    dir=`mktemp -d`
    cd "$dir"
    exec 4>file 3<file
    rm -fr "$dir"

    echo yes >&4 # OK
    cat <&3 # OK

    cat file # FAIL
    echo yes > file # FAIL


    I haven't checked, but it's most probably the same problem when using openat(2) in C with a directory that no longer exists in the file system.



    If you're root and on Linux, you can play with a separate namespace, and mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /dir inside it.



    The canonical answers (set a trap on EXIT) don't work if your script is forced into an unclean exit (eg. with SIGKILL); that may leave sensitive data hanging around.



    Update:



    Here is a small utility which implements the namespace approach. It should be compiled with



    cc -Wall -Os -s chtmp.c -o chtmp


    and given CAP_SYS_ADMIN file capabilities (as root) with



    setcap CAP_SYS_ADMIN+ep chtmp


    When run (as a normal) user as



    ./chtmp command args ...


    it will unshare its filesystem namespace, mount a tmpfs filesystem on /proc/sysvipc, chdir into it and run command with the given arguments. command will not inherit the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.



    That filesystem will not be accessible from another process not started from command, and it will magically disappear (with all the files that were created inside it) when command and its children die, no matter how that happens. Notice that this is just unsharing the mount namespace -- there are no hard barriers between command and other processes run by the same user; they could still sneak inside its namespace either via ptrace(2), /proc/PID/cwd or by other means.



    The hijacking of the "useless" /proc/sysvipc is, of course silly, but the alternative would've been to spam /tmp with empty directories that would have to be removed or greatly complicate this small program with forks and waits. Alternatively, dir can be changed to eg. /mnt/chtmp and have it created by root at installation; do not make it user-configurable and do not set it to a user-owned path as that may expose you to symlink traps and other hairy stuff not worth spending time on.



    chtmp.c



    #define _GNU_SOURCE
    #include <err.h>
    #include <sched.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/mount.h>
    int main(int argc, char **argv){
    char *dir = "/proc/sysvipc"; /* LOL */
    if(argc < 2 || !argv[1]) errx(1, "usage: %s prog args ...", *argv);
    argv++;
    if(unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)) err(1, "unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)");
    /* "modern" systemd remounts all mount points MS_SHARED
    see the NOTES in mount_namespaces(7); YUCK */
    if(mount("none", "/", 0, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE, 0))
    err(1, "mount(/, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE)");
    if(mount("tmpfs", dir, "tmpfs", 0, 0)) err(1, "mount(tmpfs, %s)", dir);
    if(chdir(dir)) err(1, "chdir %s", dir);
    execvp(*argv, argv);
    err(1, "execvp %s", *argv);
    }





    share|improve this answer














    You can chdir into it and then remove it, provided that you don't try to use paths inside it afterwards:



    #! /bin/sh
    dir=`mktemp -d`
    cd "$dir"
    exec 4>file 3<file
    rm -fr "$dir"

    echo yes >&4 # OK
    cat <&3 # OK

    cat file # FAIL
    echo yes > file # FAIL


    I haven't checked, but it's most probably the same problem when using openat(2) in C with a directory that no longer exists in the file system.



    If you're root and on Linux, you can play with a separate namespace, and mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /dir inside it.



    The canonical answers (set a trap on EXIT) don't work if your script is forced into an unclean exit (eg. with SIGKILL); that may leave sensitive data hanging around.



    Update:



    Here is a small utility which implements the namespace approach. It should be compiled with



    cc -Wall -Os -s chtmp.c -o chtmp


    and given CAP_SYS_ADMIN file capabilities (as root) with



    setcap CAP_SYS_ADMIN+ep chtmp


    When run (as a normal) user as



    ./chtmp command args ...


    it will unshare its filesystem namespace, mount a tmpfs filesystem on /proc/sysvipc, chdir into it and run command with the given arguments. command will not inherit the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.



    That filesystem will not be accessible from another process not started from command, and it will magically disappear (with all the files that were created inside it) when command and its children die, no matter how that happens. Notice that this is just unsharing the mount namespace -- there are no hard barriers between command and other processes run by the same user; they could still sneak inside its namespace either via ptrace(2), /proc/PID/cwd or by other means.



    The hijacking of the "useless" /proc/sysvipc is, of course silly, but the alternative would've been to spam /tmp with empty directories that would have to be removed or greatly complicate this small program with forks and waits. Alternatively, dir can be changed to eg. /mnt/chtmp and have it created by root at installation; do not make it user-configurable and do not set it to a user-owned path as that may expose you to symlink traps and other hairy stuff not worth spending time on.



    chtmp.c



    #define _GNU_SOURCE
    #include <err.h>
    #include <sched.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/mount.h>
    int main(int argc, char **argv){
    char *dir = "/proc/sysvipc"; /* LOL */
    if(argc < 2 || !argv[1]) errx(1, "usage: %s prog args ...", *argv);
    argv++;
    if(unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)) err(1, "unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)");
    /* "modern" systemd remounts all mount points MS_SHARED
    see the NOTES in mount_namespaces(7); YUCK */
    if(mount("none", "/", 0, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE, 0))
    err(1, "mount(/, MS_REC|MS_PRIVATE)");
    if(mount("tmpfs", dir, "tmpfs", 0, 0)) err(1, "mount(tmpfs, %s)", dir);
    if(chdir(dir)) err(1, "chdir %s", dir);
    execvp(*argv, argv);
    err(1, "execvp %s", *argv);
    }






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 11 at 2:34

























    answered Nov 7 at 12:27









    qubert

    5636




    5636








    • 1




      Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
      – R..
      Nov 7 at 23:50










    • That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 0:10






    • 1




      Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
      – R..
      Nov 8 at 0:15












    • I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
      – Bob Johnson
      Nov 8 at 1:12










    • @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 2:06














    • 1




      Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
      – R..
      Nov 7 at 23:50










    • That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 0:10






    • 1




      Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
      – R..
      Nov 8 at 0:15












    • I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
      – Bob Johnson
      Nov 8 at 1:12










    • @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
      – qubert
      Nov 8 at 2:06








    1




    1




    Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
    – R..
    Nov 7 at 23:50




    Even if you're not root, you can do this with namespaces by creating a new user namespace and doing the tmpfs mount inside it. Smuggling access to the new dir out to the outside world is a bit tricky but should be possible.
    – R..
    Nov 7 at 23:50












    That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 0:10




    That still requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN. I have the idea of a small setcap-enabled utility that will do that, I will update the answer with it.
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 0:10




    1




    1




    Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
    – R..
    Nov 8 at 0:15






    Unless the kernel has been locked down to disallow it, creation of user namespaces is not a privileged operation. The underlying design is such that it's supposed to be safe to allow ordinary users to do without any special capability. However there is sufficient attack surface/risk that many distros disable it, I think.
    – R..
    Nov 8 at 0:15














    I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
    – Bob Johnson
    Nov 8 at 1:12




    I tried in terminal. In some temporary dir, rm $PWD work, shell is still in that dir. But no new files can be put into this "folder". Only you can do is read/write with file &3,&4. So this is still "temporary file", not "temporary folder".
    – Bob Johnson
    Nov 8 at 1:12












    @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 2:06




    @BobJohnson That's not different from what I was already saying in my answer ;-)
    – qubert
    Nov 8 at 2:06










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Do you require a specific shell?



    If zsh is an option, please read zshexpn(1):




    If =(...) is used instead of <(...), then the file passed as an argument will be the name of a temporary file containing the output of the list process. This may be used instead of the < form for a program that expects to lseek (see lseek(2)) on the input file.



    [...]



    Another problem arises any time a job with a substitution that requires a temporary file is disowned by the shell, including the case where &! or &| appears at the end of a command containing a substitution. In that case the temporary file will not be cleaned up as the shell no longer has any memory of the job. A workaround is to use a subshell, for example,



    (mycmd =(myoutput)) &!


    as the forked subshell will wait for the command to finish then remove the temporary file.



    A general workaround to ensure a process substitution endures for an appropriate length of time is to pass it as a parameter to an anonymous shell function (a piece of shell code that is run immediately with function scope). For example, this code:



    () {
    print File $1:
    cat $1
    } =(print This be the verse)


    outputs something resembling the following



    File /tmp/zsh6nU0kS:
    This be the verse



    For example I use this in rifle (part of the ranger file manager) to decrypt a file and then run rifle on the temporary file, which gets deleted when the subproces terminates. (don't forget to set $TERMCMD)



    # ~/.config/ranger/rifle.conf
    ...
    !ext exe, mime octet-stream$, has gpg, flag t = () { rifle -f F "$1" } =(gpg -dq "$1")





    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Do you require a specific shell?



      If zsh is an option, please read zshexpn(1):




      If =(...) is used instead of <(...), then the file passed as an argument will be the name of a temporary file containing the output of the list process. This may be used instead of the < form for a program that expects to lseek (see lseek(2)) on the input file.



      [...]



      Another problem arises any time a job with a substitution that requires a temporary file is disowned by the shell, including the case where &! or &| appears at the end of a command containing a substitution. In that case the temporary file will not be cleaned up as the shell no longer has any memory of the job. A workaround is to use a subshell, for example,



      (mycmd =(myoutput)) &!


      as the forked subshell will wait for the command to finish then remove the temporary file.



      A general workaround to ensure a process substitution endures for an appropriate length of time is to pass it as a parameter to an anonymous shell function (a piece of shell code that is run immediately with function scope). For example, this code:



      () {
      print File $1:
      cat $1
      } =(print This be the verse)


      outputs something resembling the following



      File /tmp/zsh6nU0kS:
      This be the verse



      For example I use this in rifle (part of the ranger file manager) to decrypt a file and then run rifle on the temporary file, which gets deleted when the subproces terminates. (don't forget to set $TERMCMD)



      # ~/.config/ranger/rifle.conf
      ...
      !ext exe, mime octet-stream$, has gpg, flag t = () { rifle -f F "$1" } =(gpg -dq "$1")





      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        Do you require a specific shell?



        If zsh is an option, please read zshexpn(1):




        If =(...) is used instead of <(...), then the file passed as an argument will be the name of a temporary file containing the output of the list process. This may be used instead of the < form for a program that expects to lseek (see lseek(2)) on the input file.



        [...]



        Another problem arises any time a job with a substitution that requires a temporary file is disowned by the shell, including the case where &! or &| appears at the end of a command containing a substitution. In that case the temporary file will not be cleaned up as the shell no longer has any memory of the job. A workaround is to use a subshell, for example,



        (mycmd =(myoutput)) &!


        as the forked subshell will wait for the command to finish then remove the temporary file.



        A general workaround to ensure a process substitution endures for an appropriate length of time is to pass it as a parameter to an anonymous shell function (a piece of shell code that is run immediately with function scope). For example, this code:



        () {
        print File $1:
        cat $1
        } =(print This be the verse)


        outputs something resembling the following



        File /tmp/zsh6nU0kS:
        This be the verse



        For example I use this in rifle (part of the ranger file manager) to decrypt a file and then run rifle on the temporary file, which gets deleted when the subproces terminates. (don't forget to set $TERMCMD)



        # ~/.config/ranger/rifle.conf
        ...
        !ext exe, mime octet-stream$, has gpg, flag t = () { rifle -f F "$1" } =(gpg -dq "$1")





        share|improve this answer












        Do you require a specific shell?



        If zsh is an option, please read zshexpn(1):




        If =(...) is used instead of <(...), then the file passed as an argument will be the name of a temporary file containing the output of the list process. This may be used instead of the < form for a program that expects to lseek (see lseek(2)) on the input file.



        [...]



        Another problem arises any time a job with a substitution that requires a temporary file is disowned by the shell, including the case where &! or &| appears at the end of a command containing a substitution. In that case the temporary file will not be cleaned up as the shell no longer has any memory of the job. A workaround is to use a subshell, for example,



        (mycmd =(myoutput)) &!


        as the forked subshell will wait for the command to finish then remove the temporary file.



        A general workaround to ensure a process substitution endures for an appropriate length of time is to pass it as a parameter to an anonymous shell function (a piece of shell code that is run immediately with function scope). For example, this code:



        () {
        print File $1:
        cat $1
        } =(print This be the verse)


        outputs something resembling the following



        File /tmp/zsh6nU0kS:
        This be the verse



        For example I use this in rifle (part of the ranger file manager) to decrypt a file and then run rifle on the temporary file, which gets deleted when the subproces terminates. (don't forget to set $TERMCMD)



        # ~/.config/ranger/rifle.conf
        ...
        !ext exe, mime octet-stream$, has gpg, flag t = () { rifle -f F "$1" } =(gpg -dq "$1")






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 14 at 7:36









        Bart

        296




        296






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480330%2ftemporary-folder-that-automatically-destroyed-after-process-exit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Tangent Lines Diagram Along Smooth Curve

            Yusuf al-Mu'taman ibn Hud

            Zucchini