[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lmi] Should 'chmod g=u' remove the 's' in "drwxrws"?
From: |
Greg Chicares |
Subject: |
[lmi] Should 'chmod g=u' remove the 's' in "drwxrws"? |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:14:39 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 |
'chmod g+s' is not undone by a subsequent 'chmod g=u', at least
not with debian testing:
/tmp/eraseme[0]$mkdir --parents foo/bar
/tmp/eraseme[0]$ls -l foo
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 greg greg 4096 Mar 17 22:04 bar
/tmp/eraseme[0]$chmod g+s foo/bar
/tmp/eraseme[0]$ls -l foo
total 4
drwxr-sr-x 2 greg greg 4096 Mar 17 22:04 bar
/tmp/eraseme[0]$chmod g=u foo/bar
/tmp/eraseme[0]$ls -l foo
total 4
drwxrwsr-x 2 greg greg 4096 Mar 17 22:04 bar
But why not? I would have thought that group permissions would
have been identical to user permissions after the series of
commands above, and that therefore it would be a mistake to
execute 'chmod g=u' after 'chmod g+s'.
This is a nice behavior, but I can't find it documented on
the GNU/Linux manpage or in the gnu coreutils manual, so can
I safely rely upon it?
- [lmi] Should 'chmod g=u' remove the 's' in "drwxrws"?,
Greg Chicares <=