Why is the “ls” command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?2019 Community Moderator...
How can ping know if my host is down
Has any country ever had 2 former presidents in jail simultaneously?
Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for "negates"?
Non-trope happy ending?
Microchip documentation does not label CAN buss pins on micro controller pinout diagram
The IT department bottlenecks progress, how should I handle this?
How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?
Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?
Review your own paper in Mathematics
Creating two special characters
Is this part of the description of the Archfey warlock's Misty Escape feature redundant?
How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?
C++ copy constructor called at return
How does electrical safety system work on ISS?
Why Shazam when there is already Superman?
C++ check if statement can be evaluated constexpr
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
15% tax on $7.5k earnings. Is that right?
What is the difference between lands and mana?
"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?
A Trivial Diagnosis
I found an audio circuit and I built it just fine, but I find it a bit too quiet. How do I amplify the output so that it is a bit louder?
How much theory knowledge is actually used while playing?
Why is the “ls” command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?
2019 Community Moderator ElectionBase permissions on a fat32 usb driveChanging file permissions of auto-mounted hot-plugged FAT32 USB partitionWhy are 666 the default file creation permissions?How do file permissions work with partition filesystem?openSUSE Live USB with windows-accessible FAT32 partitionOne of my pdf files in my apache server can be accessed the other can't, with the same permissions and same directoryHow to rename multiple files by adding a common string at beginning of the files?Parted: Creating fat32 partition on new drive doesn't mount properly, uses loop deviceList complete file name on a local apache httpd serverHow to grep the rows with same column in different files and print specific column and add onto the original file?
I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt
Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?
linux permissions filesystems fat fat32
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt
Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?
linux permissions filesystems fat fat32
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt
Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?
linux permissions filesystems fat fat32
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt
Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?
linux permissions filesystems fat fat32
linux permissions filesystems fat fat32
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
edited 6 mins ago
psmears
44728
44728
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
asked yesterday
user342731user342731
1013
1013
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).
So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.
(* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
add a comment |
But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.
You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
add a comment |
ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.
Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.
There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
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
});
}
});
user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507441%2fwhy-is-the-ls-command-showing-permissions-of-files-in-a-fat32-partition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).
So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.
(* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).
So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.
(* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).
So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.
(* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).
So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.
(* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
answered yesterday
ilkkachuilkkachu
62.1k10103179
62.1k10103179
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
add a comment |
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
4
4
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.
– jamesqf
yesterday
4
4
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
@jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.
– ilkkachu
yesterday
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).
– forest
4 hours ago
add a comment |
But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.
You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
add a comment |
But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.
You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
add a comment |
But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.
You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.
You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
answered yesterday
Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky
2634
2634
add a comment |
add a comment |
ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.
Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.
There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
add a comment |
ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.
Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.
There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
add a comment |
ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.
Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.
There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.
Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.
There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
answered 10 hours ago
Peter CordesPeter Cordes
4,4431433
4,4431433
add a comment |
add a comment |
user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507441%2fwhy-is-the-ls-command-showing-permissions-of-files-in-a-fat32-partition%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
