Close all file descriptors in bash

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












10














Is there a way to close all the open file descriptors, without having an explicit list of them beforehand?










share|improve this question



















  • 4




    All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
    – Warren Young
    Apr 6 '14 at 17:54















10














Is there a way to close all the open file descriptors, without having an explicit list of them beforehand?










share|improve this question



















  • 4




    All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
    – Warren Young
    Apr 6 '14 at 17:54













10












10








10


5





Is there a way to close all the open file descriptors, without having an explicit list of them beforehand?










share|improve this question















Is there a way to close all the open file descriptors, without having an explicit list of them beforehand?







bash shell file-descriptors






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 6 '14 at 22:58









Gilles

527k12710561580




527k12710561580










asked Apr 6 '14 at 17:48









Lorenzo Pistone

3181315




3181315







  • 4




    All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
    – Warren Young
    Apr 6 '14 at 17:54












  • 4




    All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
    – Warren Young
    Apr 6 '14 at 17:54







4




4




All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
– Warren Young
Apr 6 '14 at 17:54




All of which file descriptors? Every process has some open.
– Warren Young
Apr 6 '14 at 17:54










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















13














To answer literally, to close all open file descriptors for bash:



for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
eval "exec $fd>&-"
done


However this really isn't a good idea since it will close the basic file descriptors the shell needs for input and output. If you do this, none of the programs you run will have their output displayed on the terminal (unless they write to the tty device directly). If fact in my tests closing stdin (exec 0>&-) just causes an interactive shell to exit.



What you may actually be looking to do is rather to close all file descriptors that are not part of the shell's basic operation. These are 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout and 2 for stderr. On top of this some shells also seem to have other file descriptors open by default. In bash, for example, you have 255 (also for terminal I/O) and in dash I have 10, which points to /dev/tty rather than the specific tty/pts device the terminal is using. To close everything apart from 0, 1, 2 and 255 in bash:



for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
case "$fd" in
0|1|2|255)
;;
*)
eval "exec $fd>&-"
;;
esac
done


Note also that eval is required when redirecting the file descriptor contained in a variable, if not bash will expand the variable but consider it part of the command (in this case it would try to exec the command 0 or 1 or whichever file descriptor you are trying to close).



NOTE: Also using a glob instead of ls (eg /proc/$$/fd/*) seems to open an extra file descriptor for the glob, so ls seems the best solution here.



Update



For further information on the portability of /proc/$$/fd, please see Portability of file descriptor links. If /proc/$$/fd is unavailable, then a drop in replacement for the $(ls /proc/$$/fd), using lsof (if that is available) would be $(lsof -p $$ -Ff | grep f[0-9] | cut -c 2-).






share|improve this answer






















  • /proc is only available under Linux.
    – chepner
    Apr 7 '14 at 19:30






  • 4




    @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
    – Graeme
    Apr 7 '14 at 19:35










  • Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
    – Lorenzo Pistone
    Apr 7 '14 at 21:56










  • @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
    – Graeme
    Apr 7 '14 at 22:03


















5














In recent versions of Bash (4.1 and onward, year 2009 and later) you can specify the file descriptor to close using a shell variable:



for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd/); do
[ $fd -gt 2 ] && exec fd<&-
done


The feature had been in Korn shell already (since 1993?) but apparently took some time to make its way into Bash.






share|improve this answer




























    1














    Clear all file descriptors except i/o/e of the current shell, but also excludes the ones provided as arguments



    clear_fds() 255)
    ;;
    *)
    eval "exec $fd>&-"
    ;;
    esac
    fi
    done






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      No. The kernel can close only one FD at a time, and bash does not have "group commands" for FDs.



      for fd in $(ls -1 /proc/27343/fd); do echo exec "$fd>&-"; done


      Remove the echo after testing.



      If this is not for the shell itself but for a command to be run then you can use nohup.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 2




        The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
        – chepner
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35


















      0














      Another way without "eval" at all, is to use the form:



      $ exec var_a>> file.txt
      $ echo $var_a
      10
      $ ls -l /proc/self/fd/10
      l-wx------ 1 0 0 64 Dec 11 18:32 /proc/self/fd/10 -> /run/user/0/tmp/file.txt
      $ echo "aaaaa" >&$var_a
      $ cat file.txt
      aaaaa
      $ exec var_a>&-
      $ ls /proc/self/fd/10
      ls: cannot access '/proc/self/fd/10': No such file or directory





      share|improve this answer






















      • But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
        – G-Man
        Dec 11 at 18:04










      • Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
        – David DG
        Dec 11 at 18:11










      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123413%2fclose-all-file-descriptors-in-bash%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









      13














      To answer literally, to close all open file descriptors for bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      done


      However this really isn't a good idea since it will close the basic file descriptors the shell needs for input and output. If you do this, none of the programs you run will have their output displayed on the terminal (unless they write to the tty device directly). If fact in my tests closing stdin (exec 0>&-) just causes an interactive shell to exit.



      What you may actually be looking to do is rather to close all file descriptors that are not part of the shell's basic operation. These are 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout and 2 for stderr. On top of this some shells also seem to have other file descriptors open by default. In bash, for example, you have 255 (also for terminal I/O) and in dash I have 10, which points to /dev/tty rather than the specific tty/pts device the terminal is using. To close everything apart from 0, 1, 2 and 255 in bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      case "$fd" in
      0|1|2|255)
      ;;
      *)
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      ;;
      esac
      done


      Note also that eval is required when redirecting the file descriptor contained in a variable, if not bash will expand the variable but consider it part of the command (in this case it would try to exec the command 0 or 1 or whichever file descriptor you are trying to close).



      NOTE: Also using a glob instead of ls (eg /proc/$$/fd/*) seems to open an extra file descriptor for the glob, so ls seems the best solution here.



      Update



      For further information on the portability of /proc/$$/fd, please see Portability of file descriptor links. If /proc/$$/fd is unavailable, then a drop in replacement for the $(ls /proc/$$/fd), using lsof (if that is available) would be $(lsof -p $$ -Ff | grep f[0-9] | cut -c 2-).






      share|improve this answer






















      • /proc is only available under Linux.
        – chepner
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:30






      • 4




        @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35










      • Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
        – Lorenzo Pistone
        Apr 7 '14 at 21:56










      • @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 22:03















      13














      To answer literally, to close all open file descriptors for bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      done


      However this really isn't a good idea since it will close the basic file descriptors the shell needs for input and output. If you do this, none of the programs you run will have their output displayed on the terminal (unless they write to the tty device directly). If fact in my tests closing stdin (exec 0>&-) just causes an interactive shell to exit.



      What you may actually be looking to do is rather to close all file descriptors that are not part of the shell's basic operation. These are 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout and 2 for stderr. On top of this some shells also seem to have other file descriptors open by default. In bash, for example, you have 255 (also for terminal I/O) and in dash I have 10, which points to /dev/tty rather than the specific tty/pts device the terminal is using. To close everything apart from 0, 1, 2 and 255 in bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      case "$fd" in
      0|1|2|255)
      ;;
      *)
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      ;;
      esac
      done


      Note also that eval is required when redirecting the file descriptor contained in a variable, if not bash will expand the variable but consider it part of the command (in this case it would try to exec the command 0 or 1 or whichever file descriptor you are trying to close).



      NOTE: Also using a glob instead of ls (eg /proc/$$/fd/*) seems to open an extra file descriptor for the glob, so ls seems the best solution here.



      Update



      For further information on the portability of /proc/$$/fd, please see Portability of file descriptor links. If /proc/$$/fd is unavailable, then a drop in replacement for the $(ls /proc/$$/fd), using lsof (if that is available) would be $(lsof -p $$ -Ff | grep f[0-9] | cut -c 2-).






      share|improve this answer






















      • /proc is only available under Linux.
        – chepner
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:30






      • 4




        @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35










      • Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
        – Lorenzo Pistone
        Apr 7 '14 at 21:56










      • @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 22:03













      13












      13








      13






      To answer literally, to close all open file descriptors for bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      done


      However this really isn't a good idea since it will close the basic file descriptors the shell needs for input and output. If you do this, none of the programs you run will have their output displayed on the terminal (unless they write to the tty device directly). If fact in my tests closing stdin (exec 0>&-) just causes an interactive shell to exit.



      What you may actually be looking to do is rather to close all file descriptors that are not part of the shell's basic operation. These are 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout and 2 for stderr. On top of this some shells also seem to have other file descriptors open by default. In bash, for example, you have 255 (also for terminal I/O) and in dash I have 10, which points to /dev/tty rather than the specific tty/pts device the terminal is using. To close everything apart from 0, 1, 2 and 255 in bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      case "$fd" in
      0|1|2|255)
      ;;
      *)
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      ;;
      esac
      done


      Note also that eval is required when redirecting the file descriptor contained in a variable, if not bash will expand the variable but consider it part of the command (in this case it would try to exec the command 0 or 1 or whichever file descriptor you are trying to close).



      NOTE: Also using a glob instead of ls (eg /proc/$$/fd/*) seems to open an extra file descriptor for the glob, so ls seems the best solution here.



      Update



      For further information on the portability of /proc/$$/fd, please see Portability of file descriptor links. If /proc/$$/fd is unavailable, then a drop in replacement for the $(ls /proc/$$/fd), using lsof (if that is available) would be $(lsof -p $$ -Ff | grep f[0-9] | cut -c 2-).






      share|improve this answer














      To answer literally, to close all open file descriptors for bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      done


      However this really isn't a good idea since it will close the basic file descriptors the shell needs for input and output. If you do this, none of the programs you run will have their output displayed on the terminal (unless they write to the tty device directly). If fact in my tests closing stdin (exec 0>&-) just causes an interactive shell to exit.



      What you may actually be looking to do is rather to close all file descriptors that are not part of the shell's basic operation. These are 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout and 2 for stderr. On top of this some shells also seem to have other file descriptors open by default. In bash, for example, you have 255 (also for terminal I/O) and in dash I have 10, which points to /dev/tty rather than the specific tty/pts device the terminal is using. To close everything apart from 0, 1, 2 and 255 in bash:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd); do
      case "$fd" in
      0|1|2|255)
      ;;
      *)
      eval "exec $fd>&-"
      ;;
      esac
      done


      Note also that eval is required when redirecting the file descriptor contained in a variable, if not bash will expand the variable but consider it part of the command (in this case it would try to exec the command 0 or 1 or whichever file descriptor you are trying to close).



      NOTE: Also using a glob instead of ls (eg /proc/$$/fd/*) seems to open an extra file descriptor for the glob, so ls seems the best solution here.



      Update



      For further information on the portability of /proc/$$/fd, please see Portability of file descriptor links. If /proc/$$/fd is unavailable, then a drop in replacement for the $(ls /proc/$$/fd), using lsof (if that is available) would be $(lsof -p $$ -Ff | grep f[0-9] | cut -c 2-).







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:36









      Community

      1




      1










      answered Apr 6 '14 at 20:36









      Graeme

      24.8k46296




      24.8k46296











      • /proc is only available under Linux.
        – chepner
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:30






      • 4




        @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35










      • Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
        – Lorenzo Pistone
        Apr 7 '14 at 21:56










      • @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 22:03
















      • /proc is only available under Linux.
        – chepner
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:30






      • 4




        @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35










      • Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
        – Lorenzo Pistone
        Apr 7 '14 at 21:56










      • @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
        – Graeme
        Apr 7 '14 at 22:03















      /proc is only available under Linux.
      – chepner
      Apr 7 '14 at 19:30




      /proc is only available under Linux.
      – chepner
      Apr 7 '14 at 19:30




      4




      4




      @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
      – Graeme
      Apr 7 '14 at 19:35




      @chepner you would be right if you said that /proc/PID/fd is not very portable. But saying that /proc is only available under Linux is not a correct statement.
      – Graeme
      Apr 7 '14 at 19:35












      Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
      – Lorenzo Pistone
      Apr 7 '14 at 21:56




      Some websites use the <&- form, is it any different/needed?
      – Lorenzo Pistone
      Apr 7 '14 at 21:56












      @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
      – Graeme
      Apr 7 '14 at 22:03




      @LorenzoPistone, the direction makes no difference when closing a descriptor, so either form can be used.
      – Graeme
      Apr 7 '14 at 22:03













      5














      In recent versions of Bash (4.1 and onward, year 2009 and later) you can specify the file descriptor to close using a shell variable:



      for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd/); do
      [ $fd -gt 2 ] && exec fd<&-
      done


      The feature had been in Korn shell already (since 1993?) but apparently took some time to make its way into Bash.






      share|improve this answer

























        5














        In recent versions of Bash (4.1 and onward, year 2009 and later) you can specify the file descriptor to close using a shell variable:



        for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd/); do
        [ $fd -gt 2 ] && exec fd<&-
        done


        The feature had been in Korn shell already (since 1993?) but apparently took some time to make its way into Bash.






        share|improve this answer























          5












          5








          5






          In recent versions of Bash (4.1 and onward, year 2009 and later) you can specify the file descriptor to close using a shell variable:



          for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd/); do
          [ $fd -gt 2 ] && exec fd<&-
          done


          The feature had been in Korn shell already (since 1993?) but apparently took some time to make its way into Bash.






          share|improve this answer












          In recent versions of Bash (4.1 and onward, year 2009 and later) you can specify the file descriptor to close using a shell variable:



          for fd in $(ls /proc/$$/fd/); do
          [ $fd -gt 2 ] && exec fd<&-
          done


          The feature had been in Korn shell already (since 1993?) but apparently took some time to make its way into Bash.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 30 '16 at 22:30









          tetsujin

          5112




          5112





















              1














              Clear all file descriptors except i/o/e of the current shell, but also excludes the ones provided as arguments



              clear_fds() 255)
              ;;
              *)
              eval "exec $fd>&-"
              ;;
              esac
              fi
              done






              share|improve this answer



























                1














                Clear all file descriptors except i/o/e of the current shell, but also excludes the ones provided as arguments



                clear_fds() 255)
                ;;
                *)
                eval "exec $fd>&-"
                ;;
                esac
                fi
                done






                share|improve this answer

























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  Clear all file descriptors except i/o/e of the current shell, but also excludes the ones provided as arguments



                  clear_fds() 255)
                  ;;
                  *)
                  eval "exec $fd>&-"
                  ;;
                  esac
                  fi
                  done






                  share|improve this answer














                  Clear all file descriptors except i/o/e of the current shell, but also excludes the ones provided as arguments



                  clear_fds() 255)
                  ;;
                  *)
                  eval "exec $fd>&-"
                  ;;
                  esac
                  fi
                  done







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited May 24 at 22:02









                  Joseph Sible

                  1,171213




                  1,171213










                  answered Mar 10 at 10:36









                  untore

                  535




                  535





















                      0














                      No. The kernel can close only one FD at a time, and bash does not have "group commands" for FDs.



                      for fd in $(ls -1 /proc/27343/fd); do echo exec "$fd>&-"; done


                      Remove the echo after testing.



                      If this is not for the shell itself but for a command to be run then you can use nohup.






                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 2




                        The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                        – chepner
                        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35















                      0














                      No. The kernel can close only one FD at a time, and bash does not have "group commands" for FDs.



                      for fd in $(ls -1 /proc/27343/fd); do echo exec "$fd>&-"; done


                      Remove the echo after testing.



                      If this is not for the shell itself but for a command to be run then you can use nohup.






                      share|improve this answer


















                      • 2




                        The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                        – chepner
                        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35













                      0












                      0








                      0






                      No. The kernel can close only one FD at a time, and bash does not have "group commands" for FDs.



                      for fd in $(ls -1 /proc/27343/fd); do echo exec "$fd>&-"; done


                      Remove the echo after testing.



                      If this is not for the shell itself but for a command to be run then you can use nohup.






                      share|improve this answer














                      No. The kernel can close only one FD at a time, and bash does not have "group commands" for FDs.



                      for fd in $(ls -1 /proc/27343/fd); do echo exec "$fd>&-"; done


                      Remove the echo after testing.



                      If this is not for the shell itself but for a command to be run then you can use nohup.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Apr 7 '14 at 22:45

























                      answered Apr 6 '14 at 18:51









                      Hauke Laging

                      55.6k1285133




                      55.6k1285133







                      • 2




                        The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                        – chepner
                        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35












                      • 2




                        The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                        – chepner
                        Apr 7 '14 at 19:35







                      2




                      2




                      The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                      – chepner
                      Apr 7 '14 at 19:35




                      The file descriptor used by >&- cannot be a parameter; the redirection is parsed prior to parameter expansion.
                      – chepner
                      Apr 7 '14 at 19:35











                      0














                      Another way without "eval" at all, is to use the form:



                      $ exec var_a>> file.txt
                      $ echo $var_a
                      10
                      $ ls -l /proc/self/fd/10
                      l-wx------ 1 0 0 64 Dec 11 18:32 /proc/self/fd/10 -> /run/user/0/tmp/file.txt
                      $ echo "aaaaa" >&$var_a
                      $ cat file.txt
                      aaaaa
                      $ exec var_a>&-
                      $ ls /proc/self/fd/10
                      ls: cannot access '/proc/self/fd/10': No such file or directory





                      share|improve this answer






















                      • But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                        – G-Man
                        Dec 11 at 18:04










                      • Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                        – David DG
                        Dec 11 at 18:11















                      0














                      Another way without "eval" at all, is to use the form:



                      $ exec var_a>> file.txt
                      $ echo $var_a
                      10
                      $ ls -l /proc/self/fd/10
                      l-wx------ 1 0 0 64 Dec 11 18:32 /proc/self/fd/10 -> /run/user/0/tmp/file.txt
                      $ echo "aaaaa" >&$var_a
                      $ cat file.txt
                      aaaaa
                      $ exec var_a>&-
                      $ ls /proc/self/fd/10
                      ls: cannot access '/proc/self/fd/10': No such file or directory





                      share|improve this answer






















                      • But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                        – G-Man
                        Dec 11 at 18:04










                      • Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                        – David DG
                        Dec 11 at 18:11













                      0












                      0








                      0






                      Another way without "eval" at all, is to use the form:



                      $ exec var_a>> file.txt
                      $ echo $var_a
                      10
                      $ ls -l /proc/self/fd/10
                      l-wx------ 1 0 0 64 Dec 11 18:32 /proc/self/fd/10 -> /run/user/0/tmp/file.txt
                      $ echo "aaaaa" >&$var_a
                      $ cat file.txt
                      aaaaa
                      $ exec var_a>&-
                      $ ls /proc/self/fd/10
                      ls: cannot access '/proc/self/fd/10': No such file or directory





                      share|improve this answer














                      Another way without "eval" at all, is to use the form:



                      $ exec var_a>> file.txt
                      $ echo $var_a
                      10
                      $ ls -l /proc/self/fd/10
                      l-wx------ 1 0 0 64 Dec 11 18:32 /proc/self/fd/10 -> /run/user/0/tmp/file.txt
                      $ echo "aaaaa" >&$var_a
                      $ cat file.txt
                      aaaaa
                      $ exec var_a>&-
                      $ ls /proc/self/fd/10
                      ls: cannot access '/proc/self/fd/10': No such file or directory






                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 11 at 17:48

























                      answered Dec 11 at 17:40









                      David DG

                      12




                      12











                      • But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                        – G-Man
                        Dec 11 at 18:04










                      • Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                        – David DG
                        Dec 11 at 18:11
















                      • But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                        – G-Man
                        Dec 11 at 18:04










                      • Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                        – David DG
                        Dec 11 at 18:11















                      But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                      – G-Man
                      Dec 11 at 18:04




                      But this doesn't close all file descriptors.
                      – G-Man
                      Dec 11 at 18:04












                      Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                      – David DG
                      Dec 11 at 18:11




                      Indeed. You'll have to exec in a loop like explained in the previous replies... It was just to point the fact that "eval" is not mandatory here and that we can keep the same logic to close it than to open it... Man pages are really not clear about this...
                      – David DG
                      Dec 11 at 18:11

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123413%2fclose-all-file-descriptors-in-bash%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






                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay