What does chmod -u do? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy does chmod +w not give write permission to other(o)Is NTFS under linux able to save a linux file, with its chown and chmod settings?chmod: What does the `+a` parameter mean?When does chmod fail?Why does “chmod 1777” and “chmod 3777” both set the sticky bit?What is chmod 6050 good forWhat relationships tie ACL mask and standard group permission on a file?Why, by design, are group permissions ignored for the owner of a file?Is `chmod -R ugo+rwx /` safer than `chmod -R 777 /`?chmod - What does this command do?Basic configuration of SSH
Are USB sockets on wall outlets live all the time, even when the switch is off?
Dual Citizen. Exited the US on Italian passport recently
Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?
Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?
What effect does the “loading” weapon property have in practical terms?
What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?
If the Wish spell is used to duplicate the effect of Simulacrum, are existing duplicates destroyed?
Why can Shazam do this?
"Riffle" two strings
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?
In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?
Does light intensity oscillate really fast since it is a wave?
Should I use my personal or workplace e-mail when registering to external websites for work purpose?
How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?
How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?
Falsification in Math vs Science
Output the Arecibo Message
"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
Why is my p-value correlated to difference between means in two sample tests?
Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?
How can I create a character who can assume the widest possible range of creature sizes?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
What does chmod -u do?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy does chmod +w not give write permission to other(o)Is NTFS under linux able to save a linux file, with its chown and chmod settings?chmod: What does the `+a` parameter mean?When does chmod fail?Why does “chmod 1777” and “chmod 3777” both set the sticky bit?What is chmod 6050 good forWhat relationships tie ACL mask and standard group permission on a file?Why, by design, are group permissions ignored for the owner of a file?Is `chmod -R ugo+rwx /` safer than `chmod -R 777 /`?chmod - What does this command do?Basic configuration of SSH
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
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.
permissions chmod
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
|
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.
permissions chmod
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
6
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], wherepermsis 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
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
1
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
1
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
Mar 23 at 1:47
|
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.
permissions chmod
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
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.
permissions chmod
permissions chmod
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
edited Mar 25 at 4:00
Prvt_Yadv
3,29631430
3,29631430
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
asked Mar 23 at 1:29
y_wcy_wc
1246
1246
6
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], wherepermsis 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
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
1
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
1
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
Mar 23 at 1:47
|
show 1 more comment
6
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], wherepermsis 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
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
1
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
1
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
Mar 23 at 1:47
6
6
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
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
Mar 23 at 1:42
"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
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
1
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
1
1
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
1
1
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
Mar 23 at 1:47
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
Mar 23 at 1:47
|
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...]...], wherepermsis 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, andoshall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,permrefers to the non-terminalspermandpermcopyin 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.
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
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.permscan beu, that I got. Yes,uspecifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-uremoves the permissions of the owner (modulusumask) from all users?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:01
Because that's what-always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-uis exactly analogous to-wor (closer) tougo-u.
– Michael Homer
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
Could I trouble you with anotherchmoddocumentation 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 directorywill leave the owner's permissions asrwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
|
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
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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%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...]...], wherepermsis 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, andoshall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,permrefers to the non-terminalspermandpermcopyin 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.
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
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.permscan beu, that I got. Yes,uspecifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-uremoves the permissions of the owner (modulusumask) from all users?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:01
Because that's what-always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-uis exactly analogous to-wor (closer) tougo-u.
– Michael Homer
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
Could I trouble you with anotherchmoddocumentation 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 directorywill leave the owner's permissions asrwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
|
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...]...], wherepermsis 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, andoshall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,permrefers to the non-terminalspermandpermcopyin 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.
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
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.permscan beu, that I got. Yes,uspecifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-uremoves the permissions of the owner (modulusumask) from all users?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:01
Because that's what-always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-uis exactly analogous to-wor (closer) tougo-u.
– Michael Homer
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
Could I trouble you with anotherchmoddocumentation 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 directorywill leave the owner's permissions asrwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
|
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...]...], wherepermsis 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, andoshall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,permrefers to the non-terminalspermandpermcopyin 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.
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
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...]...], wherepermsis 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, andoshall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section,permrefers to the non-terminalspermandpermcopyin 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.
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
edited Mar 23 at 1:59
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
answered Mar 23 at 1:53
Michael HomerMichael Homer
50.7k8141177
50.7k8141177
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.permscan beu, that I got. Yes,uspecifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-uremoves the permissions of the owner (modulusumask) from all users?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:01
Because that's what-always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-uis exactly analogous to-wor (closer) tougo-u.
– Michael Homer
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
Could I trouble you with anotherchmoddocumentation 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 directorywill leave the owner's permissions asrwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
|
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.permscan beu, that I got. Yes,uspecifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that-uremoves the permissions of the owner (modulusumask) from all users?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:01
Because that's what-always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users.-uis exactly analogous to-wor (closer) tougo-u.
– Michael Homer
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
Could I trouble you with anotherchmoddocumentation 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 directorywill leave the owner's permissions asrwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expectedr-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
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
Mar 23 at 2:01
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
Mar 23 at 2:01
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
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
Mar 23 at 2:05
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
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:09
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
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
Mar 23 at 2:13
|
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
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
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 Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
answered Mar 23 at 1:56
Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv
3,29631430
3,29631430
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
add a comment |
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
2
2
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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
Mar 23 at 2:03
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.
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
6
＋1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.
– jww
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
"The format of a symbolic mode is
[ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], wherepermsis 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
Mar 23 at 1:42
1
@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.
– y_wc
Mar 23 at 1:44
1
@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
Mar 23 at 1:45
1
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
Mar 23 at 1:47