Execute vs Read bit. How do directory permissions in Linux work?
In my CMS, I noticed that directories need the executable bit (+x
) set for the user to open them. Why is the execute permission required to read a directory, and how do directory permissions in Linux work?
linux permissions directory
add a comment |
In my CMS, I noticed that directories need the executable bit (+x
) set for the user to open them. Why is the execute permission required to read a directory, and how do directory permissions in Linux work?
linux permissions directory
15
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
9
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
14
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
6
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !
– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06
add a comment |
In my CMS, I noticed that directories need the executable bit (+x
) set for the user to open them. Why is the execute permission required to read a directory, and how do directory permissions in Linux work?
linux permissions directory
In my CMS, I noticed that directories need the executable bit (+x
) set for the user to open them. Why is the execute permission required to read a directory, and how do directory permissions in Linux work?
linux permissions directory
linux permissions directory
edited Dec 12 '16 at 5:31
smac89
19719
19719
asked Sep 22 '11 at 12:13
Nick.h
2,23341416
2,23341416
15
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
9
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
14
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
6
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !
– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06
add a comment |
15
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
9
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
14
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
6
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !
– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06
15
15
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
9
9
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
14
14
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
6
6
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (
chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (
chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
When applying permissions to directories on Linux, the permission bits have different meanings than on regular files.
- The read bit (
r
) allows the affected user to list the files within the directory - The write bit (
w
) allows the affected user to create, rename, or delete files within the directory, and modify the directory's attributes - The execute bit (
x
) allows the affected user to enter the directory, and access files and directories inside - The sticky bit (
s
) states that files and directories within that directory may only be deleted or renamed by their owner (or root)
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybechdir
needs+x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs+r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
@StéphaneGimenez "+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.
– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
|
show 3 more comments
First, think: What is a directory? It's just a list of items (files and other directories) that live within. So: directory = list of names.
Read bit = If set, you can read this list. So, for example, if you have a directory named poems
:
- You can
ls poems
and you'll get a list of items living within (-l
won't reveal any details!). - You can use command-line completion i.e.
touch poems/so <TAB> poems/somefile
. - You cannot make
poems
your working directory (i.e.cd
into it).
Write bit = If set, you can modify this list i.e. you can {add,rename,delete} names on it. But! You can actually do it only if the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = Make this directory your working directory i.e. cd
into it. You need this permission if you want to:
- access (read, write, execute) items living within.
- modify the list itself i.e. add, rename, delete names on it (of course the write bit must be set on the directory).
Interesting case 1: If you have write + execute permissions on a directory, you can {delete,rename} items living within even if you don't have write perimission on those items. (use sticky bit to prevent this)
Interesting case 2: If you have execute (but not write) permission on a directory AND you have write permission on a file living within, you cannot delete the file (because it involves removing it from the list). However, you can erase its contents e.g. if it's a text file you can use vi to open it and delete everything. The file will still be there, but it will be empty.
Summary:
Read bit = You can read the names on the list.
Write bit = You can {add,rename,delete} names on the list IF the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = You can make this directory your working directory.
PS: The article mentioned by KAK is a good read.
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need thex
bit for any access to this file: forcat a/b/c/d
, I need thex
bit on alla
,b
andc
, even if I don't use them as cwd.
– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
Another note is that even if you havex
permission on the directory, if you don't havex
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can onlycat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
If you want tols -l
work for a folder, need bothr
andx
permission.
– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
|
show 4 more comments
Here is a good article on this.
Summary:
A directory with its x
bit set allows the user to cd
(change directory)
into this directory, and access the files in it.
Details:
Read (
r
)
The ability to read the names of files stored in this directory.
Write (
w
)
The ability to rename files in the directory, create new files, or delete existing files, if you also have Execute permissions. If you don't have execute perms, then write perms are meaningless.
Execute (
x
)
The ability to
cd
into this directory, and access the files in this directory.
Here are a few examples that should make it easier to understand:
# "Full Access". Reegen can list, create, delete, rename, delete,
# and stat any files in dir.
# Access to file contents is subject to the permissions
# of the file itself.
# New files can be created, any file can be deleted, regardless of
# file permissions.
drwx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except create,
# delete, or rename files in this directory.
dr-x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except list the
# filenames in this directory. If she suspects there is a file
# named "program" she can list it, but cannot do an 'ls'
# of the directory itself. She can access any file (file
# permissions permitting) if she knows its name. She can
# create new files, or rename/delete existing ones.
d-wx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen cannot create or delete any files in this directory.
# She can access any file (permissions permitting) if she
# knows its name already.
d--x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
There is even more information in the Hacking Linux Exposed article.
add a comment |
I have prepared this table with all the possible permissions and their practical effects.
(*) Only file names: other attributes such as size or date are not accesible. E.g. you can use tab key to autocomplete but not ls command.
Some thoughts:
- With X unset, R and W are mostly useless.
X alone disabling RW gives you a false sense of security since you could blindly read and write file contents and access subdirectories. You should be sure that every direct children of the directory have explicit permissions.- Rarely you will use other values than:
0: No access.
1: Minimum access allowing traversing.
5: Allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
7: Full access.
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have-W-
be functionally equivalent to---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.
– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
I tested this on my mac, but with-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with---
. That seems to be a difference
– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
|
show 5 more comments
From Robert Love's book "LINUX System Programming" chapter 1 section permission-
add a comment |
For any operation accessing a file or directory, it must first resolve the path to the file or directory. The resolution requires the user has execute permission on all directories along the path, except the final path component. So for directories, you can think of the execute bit means "resolvable".
Take path /a/b/c.txt
as an example, say the user has 1) execute permission on /
and /a
; 2) has read permission on /a/b
; 3) read and write permission on /a/b/c.txt
.
The user will fail to read (list)
/a
, because it has no read permission. But the path resolution doesn't fail.The user will be able to read (list)
/a/b
, because the user has execute permission on/
,/a
and/a/b
and has read permission on/a/b
. Note that, when reading/a/b
, the filenamec.txt
is visible, but the metadata (e.g. filesize) and the content is not, because the filename is stored with the directory, not with the file, but the metadata is stored in the inode of the file.The user will fail to read
/a/b/c.txt
, because when resolving the path from/
to/a
to/a/b
, it fails at/a/b
since the user doesn't have execute permission.
See also how a pathname is resolved to a file.
add a comment |
The meaning of Execute for directories is quite clear. Since there is no Traverse permission, unlike Windows, you must overload something. The designers picked Execute, That causes endless confusion. As a computer security guy assigning Execute rights to something you don't intend to actually Execute looks dodgy.
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence ofGENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
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
});
}
});
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%2f21251%2fexecute-vs-read-bit-how-do-directory-permissions-in-linux-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When applying permissions to directories on Linux, the permission bits have different meanings than on regular files.
- The read bit (
r
) allows the affected user to list the files within the directory - The write bit (
w
) allows the affected user to create, rename, or delete files within the directory, and modify the directory's attributes - The execute bit (
x
) allows the affected user to enter the directory, and access files and directories inside - The sticky bit (
s
) states that files and directories within that directory may only be deleted or renamed by their owner (or root)
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybechdir
needs+x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs+r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
@StéphaneGimenez "+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.
– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
|
show 3 more comments
When applying permissions to directories on Linux, the permission bits have different meanings than on regular files.
- The read bit (
r
) allows the affected user to list the files within the directory - The write bit (
w
) allows the affected user to create, rename, or delete files within the directory, and modify the directory's attributes - The execute bit (
x
) allows the affected user to enter the directory, and access files and directories inside - The sticky bit (
s
) states that files and directories within that directory may only be deleted or renamed by their owner (or root)
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybechdir
needs+x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs+r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
@StéphaneGimenez "+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.
– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
|
show 3 more comments
When applying permissions to directories on Linux, the permission bits have different meanings than on regular files.
- The read bit (
r
) allows the affected user to list the files within the directory - The write bit (
w
) allows the affected user to create, rename, or delete files within the directory, and modify the directory's attributes - The execute bit (
x
) allows the affected user to enter the directory, and access files and directories inside - The sticky bit (
s
) states that files and directories within that directory may only be deleted or renamed by their owner (or root)
When applying permissions to directories on Linux, the permission bits have different meanings than on regular files.
- The read bit (
r
) allows the affected user to list the files within the directory - The write bit (
w
) allows the affected user to create, rename, or delete files within the directory, and modify the directory's attributes - The execute bit (
x
) allows the affected user to enter the directory, and access files and directories inside - The sticky bit (
s
) states that files and directories within that directory may only be deleted or renamed by their owner (or root)
edited 13 mins ago
Flow
470516
470516
answered Sep 22 '11 at 12:33
Chris Down
79.1k14188202
79.1k14188202
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybechdir
needs+x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs+r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
@StéphaneGimenez "+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.
– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
|
show 3 more comments
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybechdir
needs+x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs+r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
@StéphaneGimenez "+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.
– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
24
24
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:
+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybe chdir
needs +x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs +r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
Great answer, but I think the last sentence is misleading. None of these permissions can be overridden per-file actually. Here “access” is a bit ambiguous:
+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes through this specific directory (nothing less, nothing more, well… maybe chdir
needs +x
too). To read or write the contents of one file, the user also needs +r
/+w
on this file, but those are distinct permissions (they do not override anything).– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:06
2
2
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
The immutable flag is filesystem specific and it won't precisely override those permissions, that's why I think the last sentence is misleading :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Sep 22 '11 at 13:18
1
1
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
I think it might be useful to mention ACL in this and other answers, cause their application for some directories can be misleading if one will consider only information provided by Chris Down
– user907860
Dec 29 '14 at 12:30
4
4
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
Seems that this answer doesn't mention the combined effect of write bit and execute bit, as Baldrick's answer mentions below? i.e. if you only have write permission but not execution permission, then it's quite useless.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 8:55
1
1
@StéphaneGimenez "
+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
@StéphaneGimenez "
+x
on the directory grants access to files inodes" -- This seems like a good nemonic, but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story? Without the execute bit set on a directory, you can't change the filename of a file in that directory. I'm wondering why this is, because the filename is stored in a directory entry, not an inode.– Kevin Wheeler
Dec 17 '15 at 22:11
|
show 3 more comments
First, think: What is a directory? It's just a list of items (files and other directories) that live within. So: directory = list of names.
Read bit = If set, you can read this list. So, for example, if you have a directory named poems
:
- You can
ls poems
and you'll get a list of items living within (-l
won't reveal any details!). - You can use command-line completion i.e.
touch poems/so <TAB> poems/somefile
. - You cannot make
poems
your working directory (i.e.cd
into it).
Write bit = If set, you can modify this list i.e. you can {add,rename,delete} names on it. But! You can actually do it only if the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = Make this directory your working directory i.e. cd
into it. You need this permission if you want to:
- access (read, write, execute) items living within.
- modify the list itself i.e. add, rename, delete names on it (of course the write bit must be set on the directory).
Interesting case 1: If you have write + execute permissions on a directory, you can {delete,rename} items living within even if you don't have write perimission on those items. (use sticky bit to prevent this)
Interesting case 2: If you have execute (but not write) permission on a directory AND you have write permission on a file living within, you cannot delete the file (because it involves removing it from the list). However, you can erase its contents e.g. if it's a text file you can use vi to open it and delete everything. The file will still be there, but it will be empty.
Summary:
Read bit = You can read the names on the list.
Write bit = You can {add,rename,delete} names on the list IF the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = You can make this directory your working directory.
PS: The article mentioned by KAK is a good read.
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need thex
bit for any access to this file: forcat a/b/c/d
, I need thex
bit on alla
,b
andc
, even if I don't use them as cwd.
– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
Another note is that even if you havex
permission on the directory, if you don't havex
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can onlycat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
If you want tols -l
work for a folder, need bothr
andx
permission.
– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
|
show 4 more comments
First, think: What is a directory? It's just a list of items (files and other directories) that live within. So: directory = list of names.
Read bit = If set, you can read this list. So, for example, if you have a directory named poems
:
- You can
ls poems
and you'll get a list of items living within (-l
won't reveal any details!). - You can use command-line completion i.e.
touch poems/so <TAB> poems/somefile
. - You cannot make
poems
your working directory (i.e.cd
into it).
Write bit = If set, you can modify this list i.e. you can {add,rename,delete} names on it. But! You can actually do it only if the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = Make this directory your working directory i.e. cd
into it. You need this permission if you want to:
- access (read, write, execute) items living within.
- modify the list itself i.e. add, rename, delete names on it (of course the write bit must be set on the directory).
Interesting case 1: If you have write + execute permissions on a directory, you can {delete,rename} items living within even if you don't have write perimission on those items. (use sticky bit to prevent this)
Interesting case 2: If you have execute (but not write) permission on a directory AND you have write permission on a file living within, you cannot delete the file (because it involves removing it from the list). However, you can erase its contents e.g. if it's a text file you can use vi to open it and delete everything. The file will still be there, but it will be empty.
Summary:
Read bit = You can read the names on the list.
Write bit = You can {add,rename,delete} names on the list IF the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = You can make this directory your working directory.
PS: The article mentioned by KAK is a good read.
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need thex
bit for any access to this file: forcat a/b/c/d
, I need thex
bit on alla
,b
andc
, even if I don't use them as cwd.
– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
Another note is that even if you havex
permission on the directory, if you don't havex
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can onlycat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
If you want tols -l
work for a folder, need bothr
andx
permission.
– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
|
show 4 more comments
First, think: What is a directory? It's just a list of items (files and other directories) that live within. So: directory = list of names.
Read bit = If set, you can read this list. So, for example, if you have a directory named poems
:
- You can
ls poems
and you'll get a list of items living within (-l
won't reveal any details!). - You can use command-line completion i.e.
touch poems/so <TAB> poems/somefile
. - You cannot make
poems
your working directory (i.e.cd
into it).
Write bit = If set, you can modify this list i.e. you can {add,rename,delete} names on it. But! You can actually do it only if the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = Make this directory your working directory i.e. cd
into it. You need this permission if you want to:
- access (read, write, execute) items living within.
- modify the list itself i.e. add, rename, delete names on it (of course the write bit must be set on the directory).
Interesting case 1: If you have write + execute permissions on a directory, you can {delete,rename} items living within even if you don't have write perimission on those items. (use sticky bit to prevent this)
Interesting case 2: If you have execute (but not write) permission on a directory AND you have write permission on a file living within, you cannot delete the file (because it involves removing it from the list). However, you can erase its contents e.g. if it's a text file you can use vi to open it and delete everything. The file will still be there, but it will be empty.
Summary:
Read bit = You can read the names on the list.
Write bit = You can {add,rename,delete} names on the list IF the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = You can make this directory your working directory.
PS: The article mentioned by KAK is a good read.
First, think: What is a directory? It's just a list of items (files and other directories) that live within. So: directory = list of names.
Read bit = If set, you can read this list. So, for example, if you have a directory named poems
:
- You can
ls poems
and you'll get a list of items living within (-l
won't reveal any details!). - You can use command-line completion i.e.
touch poems/so <TAB> poems/somefile
. - You cannot make
poems
your working directory (i.e.cd
into it).
Write bit = If set, you can modify this list i.e. you can {add,rename,delete} names on it. But! You can actually do it only if the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = Make this directory your working directory i.e. cd
into it. You need this permission if you want to:
- access (read, write, execute) items living within.
- modify the list itself i.e. add, rename, delete names on it (of course the write bit must be set on the directory).
Interesting case 1: If you have write + execute permissions on a directory, you can {delete,rename} items living within even if you don't have write perimission on those items. (use sticky bit to prevent this)
Interesting case 2: If you have execute (but not write) permission on a directory AND you have write permission on a file living within, you cannot delete the file (because it involves removing it from the list). However, you can erase its contents e.g. if it's a text file you can use vi to open it and delete everything. The file will still be there, but it will be empty.
Summary:
Read bit = You can read the names on the list.
Write bit = You can {add,rename,delete} names on the list IF the execute bit is set too.
Execute bit = You can make this directory your working directory.
PS: The article mentioned by KAK is a good read.
answered Sep 22 '11 at 16:24
Baldrick
5,2072128
5,2072128
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need thex
bit for any access to this file: forcat a/b/c/d
, I need thex
bit on alla
,b
andc
, even if I don't use them as cwd.
– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
Another note is that even if you havex
permission on the directory, if you don't havex
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can onlycat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
If you want tols -l
work for a folder, need bothr
andx
permission.
– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
|
show 4 more comments
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need thex
bit for any access to this file: forcat a/b/c/d
, I need thex
bit on alla
,b
andc
, even if I don't use them as cwd.
– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
Another note is that even if you havex
permission on the directory, if you don't havex
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can onlycat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.
– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
If you want tols -l
work for a folder, need bothr
andx
permission.
– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
14
14
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
Thinking about directory as a list makes things more clear and logical.
– Trismegistos
Jan 9 '14 at 8:51
16
16
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need the
x
bit for any access to this file: for cat a/b/c/d
, I need the x
bit on all a
, b
and c
, even if I don't use them as cwd.– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
Great answer, but too focused on the term "working directory". I need the
x
bit for any access to this file: for cat a/b/c/d
, I need the x
bit on all a
, b
and c
, even if I don't use them as cwd.– glglgl
Nov 3 '14 at 9:24
1
1
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
This is where I found out you can't write unless it's executable too! Case 2 is also interesting, great answer!
– Mirko
Nov 30 '14 at 1:56
1
1
Another note is that even if you have
x
permission on the directory, if you don't have x
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can only cat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
Another note is that even if you have
x
permission on the directory, if you don't have x
permission on the file within, you can't really "execute" the file. You can only cat
it for example, but you can't run the file itself.– xji
Feb 16 '15 at 9:19
2
2
If you want to
ls -l
work for a folder, need both r
and x
permission.– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
If you want to
ls -l
work for a folder, need both r
and x
permission.– Eric Wang
Jun 12 '15 at 9:48
|
show 4 more comments
Here is a good article on this.
Summary:
A directory with its x
bit set allows the user to cd
(change directory)
into this directory, and access the files in it.
Details:
Read (
r
)
The ability to read the names of files stored in this directory.
Write (
w
)
The ability to rename files in the directory, create new files, or delete existing files, if you also have Execute permissions. If you don't have execute perms, then write perms are meaningless.
Execute (
x
)
The ability to
cd
into this directory, and access the files in this directory.
Here are a few examples that should make it easier to understand:
# "Full Access". Reegen can list, create, delete, rename, delete,
# and stat any files in dir.
# Access to file contents is subject to the permissions
# of the file itself.
# New files can be created, any file can be deleted, regardless of
# file permissions.
drwx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except create,
# delete, or rename files in this directory.
dr-x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except list the
# filenames in this directory. If she suspects there is a file
# named "program" she can list it, but cannot do an 'ls'
# of the directory itself. She can access any file (file
# permissions permitting) if she knows its name. She can
# create new files, or rename/delete existing ones.
d-wx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen cannot create or delete any files in this directory.
# She can access any file (permissions permitting) if she
# knows its name already.
d--x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
There is even more information in the Hacking Linux Exposed article.
add a comment |
Here is a good article on this.
Summary:
A directory with its x
bit set allows the user to cd
(change directory)
into this directory, and access the files in it.
Details:
Read (
r
)
The ability to read the names of files stored in this directory.
Write (
w
)
The ability to rename files in the directory, create new files, or delete existing files, if you also have Execute permissions. If you don't have execute perms, then write perms are meaningless.
Execute (
x
)
The ability to
cd
into this directory, and access the files in this directory.
Here are a few examples that should make it easier to understand:
# "Full Access". Reegen can list, create, delete, rename, delete,
# and stat any files in dir.
# Access to file contents is subject to the permissions
# of the file itself.
# New files can be created, any file can be deleted, regardless of
# file permissions.
drwx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except create,
# delete, or rename files in this directory.
dr-x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except list the
# filenames in this directory. If she suspects there is a file
# named "program" she can list it, but cannot do an 'ls'
# of the directory itself. She can access any file (file
# permissions permitting) if she knows its name. She can
# create new files, or rename/delete existing ones.
d-wx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen cannot create or delete any files in this directory.
# She can access any file (permissions permitting) if she
# knows its name already.
d--x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
There is even more information in the Hacking Linux Exposed article.
add a comment |
Here is a good article on this.
Summary:
A directory with its x
bit set allows the user to cd
(change directory)
into this directory, and access the files in it.
Details:
Read (
r
)
The ability to read the names of files stored in this directory.
Write (
w
)
The ability to rename files in the directory, create new files, or delete existing files, if you also have Execute permissions. If you don't have execute perms, then write perms are meaningless.
Execute (
x
)
The ability to
cd
into this directory, and access the files in this directory.
Here are a few examples that should make it easier to understand:
# "Full Access". Reegen can list, create, delete, rename, delete,
# and stat any files in dir.
# Access to file contents is subject to the permissions
# of the file itself.
# New files can be created, any file can be deleted, regardless of
# file permissions.
drwx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except create,
# delete, or rename files in this directory.
dr-x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except list the
# filenames in this directory. If she suspects there is a file
# named "program" she can list it, but cannot do an 'ls'
# of the directory itself. She can access any file (file
# permissions permitting) if she knows its name. She can
# create new files, or rename/delete existing ones.
d-wx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen cannot create or delete any files in this directory.
# She can access any file (permissions permitting) if she
# knows its name already.
d--x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
There is even more information in the Hacking Linux Exposed article.
Here is a good article on this.
Summary:
A directory with its x
bit set allows the user to cd
(change directory)
into this directory, and access the files in it.
Details:
Read (
r
)
The ability to read the names of files stored in this directory.
Write (
w
)
The ability to rename files in the directory, create new files, or delete existing files, if you also have Execute permissions. If you don't have execute perms, then write perms are meaningless.
Execute (
x
)
The ability to
cd
into this directory, and access the files in this directory.
Here are a few examples that should make it easier to understand:
# "Full Access". Reegen can list, create, delete, rename, delete,
# and stat any files in dir.
# Access to file contents is subject to the permissions
# of the file itself.
# New files can be created, any file can be deleted, regardless of
# file permissions.
drwx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except create,
# delete, or rename files in this directory.
dr-x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen can do everything in the "Full Access" list except list the
# filenames in this directory. If she suspects there is a file
# named "program" she can list it, but cannot do an 'ls'
# of the directory itself. She can access any file (file
# permissions permitting) if she knows its name. She can
# create new files, or rename/delete existing ones.
d-wx------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
# Reegen cannot create or delete any files in this directory.
# She can access any file (permissions permitting) if she
# knows its name already.
d--x------ 1 reegen reegen 4096 Jan 01 2003 dir
There is even more information in the Hacking Linux Exposed article.
edited May 27 '15 at 22:25
G-Man
12.9k93364
12.9k93364
answered Sep 22 '11 at 12:36
Kusalananda
121k16229372
121k16229372
add a comment |
add a comment |
I have prepared this table with all the possible permissions and their practical effects.
(*) Only file names: other attributes such as size or date are not accesible. E.g. you can use tab key to autocomplete but not ls command.
Some thoughts:
- With X unset, R and W are mostly useless.
X alone disabling RW gives you a false sense of security since you could blindly read and write file contents and access subdirectories. You should be sure that every direct children of the directory have explicit permissions.- Rarely you will use other values than:
0: No access.
1: Minimum access allowing traversing.
5: Allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
7: Full access.
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have-W-
be functionally equivalent to---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.
– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
I tested this on my mac, but with-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with---
. That seems to be a difference
– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
|
show 5 more comments
I have prepared this table with all the possible permissions and their practical effects.
(*) Only file names: other attributes such as size or date are not accesible. E.g. you can use tab key to autocomplete but not ls command.
Some thoughts:
- With X unset, R and W are mostly useless.
X alone disabling RW gives you a false sense of security since you could blindly read and write file contents and access subdirectories. You should be sure that every direct children of the directory have explicit permissions.- Rarely you will use other values than:
0: No access.
1: Minimum access allowing traversing.
5: Allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
7: Full access.
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have-W-
be functionally equivalent to---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.
– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
I tested this on my mac, but with-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with---
. That seems to be a difference
– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
|
show 5 more comments
I have prepared this table with all the possible permissions and their practical effects.
(*) Only file names: other attributes such as size or date are not accesible. E.g. you can use tab key to autocomplete but not ls command.
Some thoughts:
- With X unset, R and W are mostly useless.
X alone disabling RW gives you a false sense of security since you could blindly read and write file contents and access subdirectories. You should be sure that every direct children of the directory have explicit permissions.- Rarely you will use other values than:
0: No access.
1: Minimum access allowing traversing.
5: Allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
7: Full access.
I have prepared this table with all the possible permissions and their practical effects.
(*) Only file names: other attributes such as size or date are not accesible. E.g. you can use tab key to autocomplete but not ls command.
Some thoughts:
- With X unset, R and W are mostly useless.
X alone disabling RW gives you a false sense of security since you could blindly read and write file contents and access subdirectories. You should be sure that every direct children of the directory have explicit permissions.- Rarely you will use other values than:
0: No access.
1: Minimum access allowing traversing.
5: Allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
7: Full access.
edited Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
answered Oct 19 '16 at 12:11
David
52655
52655
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have-W-
be functionally equivalent to---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.
– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
I tested this on my mac, but with-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with---
. That seems to be a difference
– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
|
show 5 more comments
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have-W-
be functionally equivalent to---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.
– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
I tested this on my mac, but with-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with---
. That seems to be a difference
– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
1
1
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
I would consider 5 a helpful value, when you want to allow reading / writing, but not altering the structure of the directory tree itself.
– hgiesel
Mar 29 '17 at 15:42
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
You are right. Updated!
– David
Mar 30 '17 at 18:05
4
4
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have
-W-
be functionally equivalent to ---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
Great summary chart. Makes me wonder what someone was thinking to have
-W-
be functionally equivalent to ---
for directories. Not very intuitive. Of course these types of low-level bits often aren't.– CivFan
May 2 '17 at 21:06
2
2
I tested this on my mac, but with
-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with ---
. That seems to be a difference– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
I tested this on my mac, but with
-W-
, I could rename the directory (in a directory with a sticky bit) but not with ---
. That seems to be a difference– cozyconemotel
Jul 15 '17 at 1:45
3
3
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
@David, You are missing the sticky bit.
– Pacerier
Nov 21 '17 at 17:29
|
show 5 more comments
From Robert Love's book "LINUX System Programming" chapter 1 section permission-
add a comment |
From Robert Love's book "LINUX System Programming" chapter 1 section permission-
add a comment |
From Robert Love's book "LINUX System Programming" chapter 1 section permission-
From Robert Love's book "LINUX System Programming" chapter 1 section permission-
answered Nov 29 '17 at 13:57
alhelal
361517
361517
add a comment |
add a comment |
For any operation accessing a file or directory, it must first resolve the path to the file or directory. The resolution requires the user has execute permission on all directories along the path, except the final path component. So for directories, you can think of the execute bit means "resolvable".
Take path /a/b/c.txt
as an example, say the user has 1) execute permission on /
and /a
; 2) has read permission on /a/b
; 3) read and write permission on /a/b/c.txt
.
The user will fail to read (list)
/a
, because it has no read permission. But the path resolution doesn't fail.The user will be able to read (list)
/a/b
, because the user has execute permission on/
,/a
and/a/b
and has read permission on/a/b
. Note that, when reading/a/b
, the filenamec.txt
is visible, but the metadata (e.g. filesize) and the content is not, because the filename is stored with the directory, not with the file, but the metadata is stored in the inode of the file.The user will fail to read
/a/b/c.txt
, because when resolving the path from/
to/a
to/a/b
, it fails at/a/b
since the user doesn't have execute permission.
See also how a pathname is resolved to a file.
add a comment |
For any operation accessing a file or directory, it must first resolve the path to the file or directory. The resolution requires the user has execute permission on all directories along the path, except the final path component. So for directories, you can think of the execute bit means "resolvable".
Take path /a/b/c.txt
as an example, say the user has 1) execute permission on /
and /a
; 2) has read permission on /a/b
; 3) read and write permission on /a/b/c.txt
.
The user will fail to read (list)
/a
, because it has no read permission. But the path resolution doesn't fail.The user will be able to read (list)
/a/b
, because the user has execute permission on/
,/a
and/a/b
and has read permission on/a/b
. Note that, when reading/a/b
, the filenamec.txt
is visible, but the metadata (e.g. filesize) and the content is not, because the filename is stored with the directory, not with the file, but the metadata is stored in the inode of the file.The user will fail to read
/a/b/c.txt
, because when resolving the path from/
to/a
to/a/b
, it fails at/a/b
since the user doesn't have execute permission.
See also how a pathname is resolved to a file.
add a comment |
For any operation accessing a file or directory, it must first resolve the path to the file or directory. The resolution requires the user has execute permission on all directories along the path, except the final path component. So for directories, you can think of the execute bit means "resolvable".
Take path /a/b/c.txt
as an example, say the user has 1) execute permission on /
and /a
; 2) has read permission on /a/b
; 3) read and write permission on /a/b/c.txt
.
The user will fail to read (list)
/a
, because it has no read permission. But the path resolution doesn't fail.The user will be able to read (list)
/a/b
, because the user has execute permission on/
,/a
and/a/b
and has read permission on/a/b
. Note that, when reading/a/b
, the filenamec.txt
is visible, but the metadata (e.g. filesize) and the content is not, because the filename is stored with the directory, not with the file, but the metadata is stored in the inode of the file.The user will fail to read
/a/b/c.txt
, because when resolving the path from/
to/a
to/a/b
, it fails at/a/b
since the user doesn't have execute permission.
See also how a pathname is resolved to a file.
For any operation accessing a file or directory, it must first resolve the path to the file or directory. The resolution requires the user has execute permission on all directories along the path, except the final path component. So for directories, you can think of the execute bit means "resolvable".
Take path /a/b/c.txt
as an example, say the user has 1) execute permission on /
and /a
; 2) has read permission on /a/b
; 3) read and write permission on /a/b/c.txt
.
The user will fail to read (list)
/a
, because it has no read permission. But the path resolution doesn't fail.The user will be able to read (list)
/a/b
, because the user has execute permission on/
,/a
and/a/b
and has read permission on/a/b
. Note that, when reading/a/b
, the filenamec.txt
is visible, but the metadata (e.g. filesize) and the content is not, because the filename is stored with the directory, not with the file, but the metadata is stored in the inode of the file.The user will fail to read
/a/b/c.txt
, because when resolving the path from/
to/a
to/a/b
, it fails at/a/b
since the user doesn't have execute permission.
See also how a pathname is resolved to a file.
edited Apr 21 at 0:31
answered Apr 20 at 22:02
Dagang
1012
1012
add a comment |
add a comment |
The meaning of Execute for directories is quite clear. Since there is no Traverse permission, unlike Windows, you must overload something. The designers picked Execute, That causes endless confusion. As a computer security guy assigning Execute rights to something you don't intend to actually Execute looks dodgy.
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence ofGENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
add a comment |
The meaning of Execute for directories is quite clear. Since there is no Traverse permission, unlike Windows, you must overload something. The designers picked Execute, That causes endless confusion. As a computer security guy assigning Execute rights to something you don't intend to actually Execute looks dodgy.
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence ofGENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
add a comment |
The meaning of Execute for directories is quite clear. Since there is no Traverse permission, unlike Windows, you must overload something. The designers picked Execute, That causes endless confusion. As a computer security guy assigning Execute rights to something you don't intend to actually Execute looks dodgy.
The meaning of Execute for directories is quite clear. Since there is no Traverse permission, unlike Windows, you must overload something. The designers picked Execute, That causes endless confusion. As a computer security guy assigning Execute rights to something you don't intend to actually Execute looks dodgy.
edited Sep 26 '17 at 22:30
answered Sep 26 '17 at 19:31
NemoX
91
91
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence ofGENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
add a comment |
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence ofGENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
1
1
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence of
GENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
The invention of the execute permission bit pre-dates the invention of the concept of a distinct traverse permission by about two decades. This answer's logic depends from a historic timeline that is nothing like that of the real world, and also fails to notice the existence of
GENERIC_EXECUTE
and what it is.– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 7:34
add a comment |
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.
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%2f21251%2fexecute-vs-read-bit-how-do-directory-permissions-in-linux-work%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
15
...uh, because that's what the "+x" flag is for :)
– badp
Sep 22 '11 at 19:44
9
See also In Linux, "Write" Permission Is Equivalent To "Execute" For Directories? and Do the parent directory's permissions matter when accessing a subdirectory?
– Gilles
Sep 22 '11 at 22:56
14
Think like this: the directory entry contains file names, so "reading" a directory is listing the files, "using" the directory is accessing the files.
– tylerl
Sep 23 '11 at 9:12
6
With directory execute bit set, you are allowed to traverse its hierachy. Given you belong to "other" people and only have execute bit set (
chmod 771 dirOne
) you cannot list dirOne content. BUT if it contains a sub directory "dirTwo" with rights set like (chmod 774 dirTwo
) you can actually list its content !– Stphane
May 28 '16 at 17:06