What does chmod -u do?
By accident I ran chmod -u filename
and it removed all of the permissions I had on filename
.
The man page does not reference a -u
option. Experimenting I was able to conclude that it removes not all permissions, but just read and execute access, leaving write access intact.
So what does this do exactly?
My conclusion above is wrong, I now think that what it does is remove the permissions that the owner has, from all categories.
I think the behavior is analogous to a=u
, only it is -
instead of =
and a
can be dropped just as it can with, for instance, a+x
.
chmod
New contributor
|
show 1 more comment
By accident I ran chmod -u filename
and it removed all of the permissions I had on filename
.
The man page does not reference a -u
option. Experimenting I was able to conclude that it removes not all permissions, but just read and execute access, leaving write access intact.
So what does this do exactly?
My conclusion above is wrong, I now think that what it does is remove the permissions that the owner has, from all categories.
I think the behavior is analogous to a=u
, only it is -
instead of =
and a
can be dropped just as it can with, for instance, a+x
.
chmod
New contributor
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the setugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.
– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."
– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instanceu
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?
– y_wc
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
By accident I ran chmod -u filename
and it removed all of the permissions I had on filename
.
The man page does not reference a -u
option. Experimenting I was able to conclude that it removes not all permissions, but just read and execute access, leaving write access intact.
So what does this do exactly?
My conclusion above is wrong, I now think that what it does is remove the permissions that the owner has, from all categories.
I think the behavior is analogous to a=u
, only it is -
instead of =
and a
can be dropped just as it can with, for instance, a+x
.
chmod
New contributor
By accident I ran chmod -u filename
and it removed all of the permissions I had on filename
.
The man page does not reference a -u
option. Experimenting I was able to conclude that it removes not all permissions, but just read and execute access, leaving write access intact.
So what does this do exactly?
My conclusion above is wrong, I now think that what it does is remove the permissions that the owner has, from all categories.
I think the behavior is analogous to a=u
, only it is -
instead of =
and a
can be dropped just as it can with, for instance, a+x
.
chmod
chmod
New contributor
New contributor
edited 32 mins ago
y_wc
New contributor
asked 52 mins ago
y_wcy_wc
374
374
New contributor
New contributor
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the setugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.
– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."
– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instanceu
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?
– y_wc
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the setugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.
– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."
– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instanceu
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?
– y_wc
34 mins ago
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
1
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, where perms
is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
"The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, where perms
is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance
u
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?– y_wc
34 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance
u
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?– y_wc
34 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is not an option, but a standard (but uncommon) way of specifying the permissions. It means to remove (-
) the permissions associated with the file owner (u
), for all users (no preceding u
, g
, or o
). This is documented in the man page.
GNU chmod's man page documents this as:
The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
and later
Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)
So -u
means to remove (-
) whatever permissions are currently enabled for the owner (u
) for everybody (equivalently to a-u
, except honouring the current umask). While that's not often going to be very useful, the analogous chmod +u
will sometimes be, to copy the permissions from the owner to others when operating recursively, for example.
It's also documented in POSIX, but more obscurely defined: the permission specification is broadly who[+-=]perms
(or a number), and the effect of those are further specified:
The permcopy symbols
u
,g
, ando
shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,perm
refers to the non-terminalsperm
andpermcopy
in the grammar.
and then
-
...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.perms
can beu
, that I got. Yes,u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulusumask
) from all users?
– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-u
is exactly analogous to-w
or (closer) tougo-u
.
– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with anotherchmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access,chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions asrwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.
– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The answer is little bit similar to https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/429424/255251.
chmod -u file_name
doesn't removes all permission, but it consider umask
value.
umask
0022
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are ----w--w-, not ---------
ls -l file
-----w--w- 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Now change umask value
umask 777
chmod 777 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are rwxrwxrwx, not ---------
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f508104%2fwhat-does-chmod-u-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is not an option, but a standard (but uncommon) way of specifying the permissions. It means to remove (-
) the permissions associated with the file owner (u
), for all users (no preceding u
, g
, or o
). This is documented in the man page.
GNU chmod's man page documents this as:
The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
and later
Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)
So -u
means to remove (-
) whatever permissions are currently enabled for the owner (u
) for everybody (equivalently to a-u
, except honouring the current umask). While that's not often going to be very useful, the analogous chmod +u
will sometimes be, to copy the permissions from the owner to others when operating recursively, for example.
It's also documented in POSIX, but more obscurely defined: the permission specification is broadly who[+-=]perms
(or a number), and the effect of those are further specified:
The permcopy symbols
u
,g
, ando
shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,perm
refers to the non-terminalsperm
andpermcopy
in the grammar.
and then
-
...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.perms
can beu
, that I got. Yes,u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulusumask
) from all users?
– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-u
is exactly analogous to-w
or (closer) tougo-u
.
– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with anotherchmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access,chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions asrwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.
– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
This is not an option, but a standard (but uncommon) way of specifying the permissions. It means to remove (-
) the permissions associated with the file owner (u
), for all users (no preceding u
, g
, or o
). This is documented in the man page.
GNU chmod's man page documents this as:
The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
and later
Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)
So -u
means to remove (-
) whatever permissions are currently enabled for the owner (u
) for everybody (equivalently to a-u
, except honouring the current umask). While that's not often going to be very useful, the analogous chmod +u
will sometimes be, to copy the permissions from the owner to others when operating recursively, for example.
It's also documented in POSIX, but more obscurely defined: the permission specification is broadly who[+-=]perms
(or a number), and the effect of those are further specified:
The permcopy symbols
u
,g
, ando
shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,perm
refers to the non-terminalsperm
andpermcopy
in the grammar.
and then
-
...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.perms
can beu
, that I got. Yes,u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulusumask
) from all users?
– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-u
is exactly analogous to-w
or (closer) tougo-u
.
– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with anotherchmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access,chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions asrwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.
– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
This is not an option, but a standard (but uncommon) way of specifying the permissions. It means to remove (-
) the permissions associated with the file owner (u
), for all users (no preceding u
, g
, or o
). This is documented in the man page.
GNU chmod's man page documents this as:
The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
and later
Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)
So -u
means to remove (-
) whatever permissions are currently enabled for the owner (u
) for everybody (equivalently to a-u
, except honouring the current umask). While that's not often going to be very useful, the analogous chmod +u
will sometimes be, to copy the permissions from the owner to others when operating recursively, for example.
It's also documented in POSIX, but more obscurely defined: the permission specification is broadly who[+-=]perms
(or a number), and the effect of those are further specified:
The permcopy symbols
u
,g
, ando
shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,perm
refers to the non-terminalsperm
andpermcopy
in the grammar.
and then
-
...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.
This is not an option, but a standard (but uncommon) way of specifying the permissions. It means to remove (-
) the permissions associated with the file owner (u
), for all users (no preceding u
, g
, or o
). This is documented in the man page.
GNU chmod's man page documents this as:
The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the set ugo
and later
Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)
So -u
means to remove (-
) whatever permissions are currently enabled for the owner (u
) for everybody (equivalently to a-u
, except honouring the current umask). While that's not often going to be very useful, the analogous chmod +u
will sometimes be, to copy the permissions from the owner to others when operating recursively, for example.
It's also documented in POSIX, but more obscurely defined: the permission specification is broadly who[+-=]perms
(or a number), and the effect of those are further specified:
The permcopy symbols
u
,g
, ando
shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,perm
refers to the non-terminalsperm
andpermcopy
in the grammar.
and then
-
...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.
edited 22 mins ago
answered 28 mins ago
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.1k8137175
50.1k8137175
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.perms
can beu
, that I got. Yes,u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulusumask
) from all users?
– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-u
is exactly analogous to-w
or (closer) tougo-u
.
– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with anotherchmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access,chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions asrwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.
– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.perms
can beu
, that I got. Yes,u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulusumask
) from all users?
– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-u
is exactly analogous to-w
or (closer) tougo-u
.
– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with anotherchmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access,chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions asrwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.
– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.
perms
can be u
, that I got. Yes, u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that -u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulus umask
) from all users?– y_wc
20 mins ago
Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before.
perms
can be u
, that I got. Yes, u
specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that -u
removes the permissions of the owner (modulus umask
) from all users?– y_wc
20 mins ago
Because that's what
-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u
is exactly analogous to -w
or (closer) to ugo-u
.– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
Because that's what
-
always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u
is exactly analogous to -w
or (closer) to ugo-u
.– Michael Homer
18 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.
– y_wc
16 mins ago
Could I trouble you with another
chmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions as rwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?– y_wc
12 mins ago
Could I trouble you with another
chmod
documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory
will leave the owner's permissions as rwx
. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x
. Am I misinterpreting someting?– y_wc
12 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (
s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
It's saying that the setuid/setgid (
s
) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.– Michael Homer
8 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The answer is little bit similar to https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/429424/255251.
chmod -u file_name
doesn't removes all permission, but it consider umask
value.
umask
0022
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are ----w--w-, not ---------
ls -l file
-----w--w- 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Now change umask value
umask 777
chmod 777 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are rwxrwxrwx, not ---------
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
add a comment |
The answer is little bit similar to https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/429424/255251.
chmod -u file_name
doesn't removes all permission, but it consider umask
value.
umask
0022
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are ----w--w-, not ---------
ls -l file
-----w--w- 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Now change umask value
umask 777
chmod 777 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are rwxrwxrwx, not ---------
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
add a comment |
The answer is little bit similar to https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/429424/255251.
chmod -u file_name
doesn't removes all permission, but it consider umask
value.
umask
0022
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are ----w--w-, not ---------
ls -l file
-----w--w- 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Now change umask value
umask 777
chmod 777 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are rwxrwxrwx, not ---------
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
The answer is little bit similar to https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/429424/255251.
chmod -u file_name
doesn't removes all permission, but it consider umask
value.
umask
0022
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are ----w--w-, not ---------
ls -l file
-----w--w- 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
Now change umask value
umask 777
chmod 777 file
chmod -u file
chmod: file: new permissions are rwxrwxrwx, not ---------
ls -l file
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 4 Feb 25 15:17 file
answered 25 mins ago
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
2,88031227
2,88031227
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
add a comment |
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.
– y_wc
18 mins ago
add a comment |
y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f508104%2fwhat-does-chmod-u-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
39 mins ago
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...]
, whereperms
is either zero or more letters from the setrwxXst
, or a single letter from the setugo
" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.– Michael Homer
39 mins ago
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
36 mins ago
@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (
u
), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g
), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o
)."– Michael Homer
36 mins ago
Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance
u
, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?– y_wc
34 mins ago