When invoked during startup or shutdown, an rc.d script is
supposed to act on the entire subsystem it is responsible for. E.g., /etc/rc.d/netif should start or stop all network interfaces
described by rc.conf(5). Either
task can be uniquely indicated by a single command argument such as start
or stop
. Between startup and
shutdown, rc.d scripts help the admin to control the running
system, and it is when the need for more flexibility and precision arises. For instance,
the admin may want to add the settings of a new network interface to rc.conf(5) and then to
start it without interfering with the operation of the existing interfaces. Next time the
admin may need to shut down a single network interface. In the spirit of the command
line, the respective rc.d script calls for an extra argument,
the interface name.
Fortunately, rc.subr(8) allows for passing any number of arguments to script's methods (within the system limits). Due to that, the changes in the script itself can be minimal.
How can rc.subr(8) gain access to the extra command-line arguments. Should it just grab them directly? Not by any means. Firstly, an sh(1) function has no access to the positional parameters of its caller, but rc.subr(8) is just a sack of such functions. Secondly, the good manner of rc.d dictates that it is for the main script to decide which arguments are to be passed to its methods.
So the approach adopted by rc.subr(8) is as
follows: run_rc_command
passes on all its arguments but the
first one to the respective method verbatim. The first, omitted, argument is the name of
the method itself: start
, stop
,
etc. It will be shifted out by run_rc_command
, so what is
$2 in the original command line will be presented as $1 to the method, and so on.
To illustrate this opportunity, let us modify the primitive dummy script so that its messages depend on the additional arguments supplied. Here we go:
#!/bin/sh . /etc/rc.subr name="dummy" start_cmd="${name}_start" stop_cmd=":" kiss_cmd="${name}_kiss" extra_commands="kiss" dummy_start() { if [ $# -gt 0 ]; then echo "Greeting message: $*" else echo "Nothing started." fi } dummy_kiss() { echo -n "A ghost gives you a kiss" if [ $# -gt 0 ]; then echo -n " and whispers: $*" fi case "$*" in *[.!?]) echo ;; *) echo . ;; esac } load_rc_config $name run_rc_command "$@"
What essential changes can we notice in the script?
start
can end up as
positional parameters to the respective method. We can use them in any way according to
our task, skills, and fancy. In the current example, we just pass all of them to echo(1) as one string
in the next line -- note $* within the double quotes. Here is how
the script can be invoked now:# /etc/rc.d/dummy start Nothing started. # /etc/rc.d/dummy start Hello world! Greeting message: Hello world!
kiss
, and it can take
advantage of the extra arguments not less than start
does.
E.g.:# /etc/rc.d/dummy kiss A ghost gives you a kiss. # /etc/rc.d/dummy kiss Once I was Etaoin Shrdlu... A ghost gives you a kiss and whispers: Once I was Etaoin Shrdlu...
run_rc_command
.Important: An sh(1) programmer ought to understand the subtle difference between $* and $@ as the ways to designate all positional parameters. For its in-depth discussion, refer to a good handbook on sh(1) scripting. Do not use the expressions until you fully understand them because their misuse will result in buggy and insecure scripts.
Note: Currently
run_rc_command
may have a bug that prevents it from keeping the original boundaries between arguments. That is, arguments with embedded whitespace may not be processed correctly. The bug stems from $* misuse.