What does chmod -u do?2019 Community Moderator ElectionWhy 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 -R 644 ~/Documentschmod: What does the `+a` parameter mean?External drive chmod does nothingWhen does chmod fail?invalid mode chmod commandRoot can't chmod?chmod - What does this command do?In Fedora what corresponds to chmod?What is a chmod equivalent of mesg

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

Can the US President recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights for the USA or does that need an act of Congress?

How can "mimic phobia" be cured or prevented?

Plot of a tornado-shaped surface

Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?

Why "had" in "[something] we would have made had we used [something]"?

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?

What should you do when eye contact makes your subordinate uncomfortable?

How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?

How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character

Is there a way to get `mathscr' with lower case letters in pdfLaTeX?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?

Why would a new[] expression ever invoke a destructor?

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

Store Credit Card Information in Password Manager?

How do apertures which seem too large to physically fit work?

Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country

Why is the "ls" command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

Can a stoichiometric mixture of oxygen and methane exist as a liquid at standard pressure and some (low) temperature?

15% tax on $7.5k earnings. Is that right?

What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?

Mixing PEX brands



What does chmod -u do?



2019 Community Moderator ElectionWhy 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 -R 644 ~/Documentschmod: What does the `+a` parameter mean?External drive chmod does nothingWhen does chmod fail?invalid mode chmod commandRoot can't chmod?chmod - What does this command do?In Fedora what corresponds to chmod?What is a chmod equivalent of mesg










4















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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • +1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

    – jww
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    4 hours ago












  • @MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • @y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago












  • Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago















4















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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • +1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

    – jww
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    4 hours ago












  • @MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • @y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago












  • Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago













4












4








4








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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












By accident I ran chmod -u filename and it removed all of the permissions I had on filename.



The man page does not reference a -u option. Experimenting I was able to conclude that it removes not all permissions, but just read and execute access, leaving write access intact.



So what does this do exactly?




My conclusion above is wrong, I now think that what it does is remove the permissions that the owner has, from all categories.




I think the behavior is analogous to a=u, only it is - instead of = and a can be dropped just as it can with, for instance, a+x.







chmod






share|improve this question









New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







y_wc













New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









y_wcy_wc

475




475




New contributor




y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






y_wc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • +1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

    – jww
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    4 hours ago












  • @MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • @y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago












  • Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago

















  • +1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

    – jww
    4 hours ago






  • 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
    4 hours ago












  • @MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • @y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago












  • Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago
















+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

– jww
4 hours ago





+1 for asking a basic question that is not in the man page.

– jww
4 hours ago




1




1





"The format of a symbolic mode is [ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, or a single letter from the set ugo" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago






"The format of a symbolic mode is [ugoa...][[-+=][perms...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, or a single letter from the set ugo" (GNU chmod man page); POSIX is fairly obscure, but defines a "permcopy" production for the same effect.

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago














@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

– y_wc
4 hours ago





@MichaelHomer It doesn't say what it does.

– y_wc
4 hours ago













@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago






@y_wc "Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the permissions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding categories (o)."

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago














Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

– y_wc
4 hours ago





Yes, I read that. I don't see that it mentions what it does. It says that I can specify one of those letters. Specifying, for instance u, I'll be specifying the permissions granted to the user who owns the file. But it doesn't say what it does. What does specify even mean?

– y_wc
4 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5














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...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, 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, and o shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section, perm refers to the non-terminals perm and permcopy in the grammar.




and then




-



...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.







share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    4 hours ago











  • Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago











  • I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

    – y_wc
    3 hours ago











  • It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

    – Michael Homer
    3 hours ago


















0














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





share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    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
    4 hours ago










Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















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









5














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...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, 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, and o shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section, perm refers to the non-terminals perm and permcopy in the grammar.




and then




-



...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.







share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    4 hours ago











  • Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago











  • I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

    – y_wc
    3 hours ago











  • It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

    – Michael Homer
    3 hours ago















5














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...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, 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, and o shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section, perm refers to the non-terminals perm and permcopy in the grammar.




and then




-



...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.







share|improve this answer

























  • 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
    4 hours ago











  • Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago











  • I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

    – y_wc
    3 hours ago











  • It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

    – Michael Homer
    3 hours ago













5












5








5







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...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, 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, and o shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section, perm refers to the non-terminals perm and permcopy in the grammar.




and then




-



...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.







share|improve this answer















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...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, 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, and o shall represent the current permissions associated with the user, group, and other parts of the file mode bits, respectively. For the remainder of this section, perm refers to the non-terminals perm and permcopy in the grammar.




and then




-



...
If who is not specified, the file mode bits represented by perm for the owner, group, and other permissions, except for those with corresponding bits in the file mode creation mask of the invoking process, shall be cleared.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









Michael HomerMichael Homer

50.1k8137175




50.1k8137175












  • Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before. perms can 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
    4 hours ago











  • Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago











  • I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

    – y_wc
    3 hours ago











  • It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

    – Michael Homer
    3 hours ago

















  • Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before. perms can be u, that I got. Yes, u specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that -u removes the permissions of the owner (modulus umask) from all users?

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

    – Michael Homer
    4 hours ago











  • I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

    – y_wc
    4 hours ago











  • Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

    – y_wc
    3 hours ago











  • It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

    – Michael Homer
    3 hours ago
















Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before. perms can be u, that I got. Yes, u specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that -u removes the permissions of the owner (modulus umask) from all users?

– y_wc
4 hours ago





Thanks, Michael. The POSIX documentation is convincing. The GNU however... Please see this comment of mine. I don't see how what comes after "So" follows from what's before. perms can be u, that I got. Yes, u specifies the permissions or the owner. But how does it follow that -u removes the permissions of the owner (modulus umask) from all users?

– y_wc
4 hours ago













Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago





Because that's what - always does: it removes the specified permissions from the specified class of users. -u is exactly analogous to -w or (closer) to ugo-u.

– Michael Homer
4 hours ago













I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

– y_wc
4 hours ago





I was about to say I didn't come here to discuss documentation and that I was happy to just understand what's going on, but the docs just clicked. Thanks.

– y_wc
4 hours ago













Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

– y_wc
3 hours ago





Could I trouble you with another chmod documentation question? Let me know if you think this deserves a seperate question. "and = causes them to be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected. " This, to me, is saying that, given a directory whose owner has only write access, chmod u=rx directory will leave the owner's permissions as rwx. But that's not what happens, instead they become the expected r-x. Am I misinterpreting someting?

– y_wc
3 hours ago













It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

– Michael Homer
3 hours ago





It's saying that the setuid/setgid (s) bits are left alone if you don't mention them, and anything else you didn't specify is removed.

– Michael Homer
3 hours ago













0














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





share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    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
    4 hours ago















0














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





share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    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
    4 hours ago













0












0








0







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





share|improve this answer













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






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv

2,88031227




2,88031227







  • 1





    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
    4 hours ago












  • 1





    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
    4 hours ago







1




1





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
4 hours ago





Instructive, good to know and very useful, but I think this isn't really the issue, although it is very much related. Thanks.

– y_wc
4 hours ago










y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











y_wc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar