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: 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

Bob has never been a M before

What was required to accept "troll"?

What does the "3am" section means in manpages?

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Did US corporations pay demonstrators in the German demonstrations against article 13?

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off

Female=gender counterpart?

Simple image editor tool to draw a simple box/rectangle in an existing image

Latex for-and in equation

Can I create an upright 7-foot × 5-foot wall with the Minor Illusion spell?

A workplace installs custom certificates on personal devices, can this be used to decrypt HTTPS traffic?

Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?

Should a half Jewish man be discouraged from marrying a Jewess?

Are Warlocks Arcane or Divine?

What is the term when two people sing in harmony, but they aren't singing the same notes?

Is a naturally all "male" species possible?

How can a jailer prevent the Forge Cleric's Artisan's Blessing from being used?

Calculating the number of days between 2 dates in Excel

Word describing multiple paths to the same abstract outcome

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)

Visiting the UK as unmarried couple

I2C signal and power over long range (10meter cable)

Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?



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: 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










18















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.















  • 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...]...], 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





    @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















18















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.















  • 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...]...], 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





    @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













18












18








18


3






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.







permissions 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 yesterday









Prvt_Yadv

2,92531327




2,92531327






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 Mar 23 at 1:29









y_wcy_wc

1196




1196




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.







  • 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...]...], 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





    @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












  • 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...]...], 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





    @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







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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















17














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
    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











  • 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











  • 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


















2














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


















  • 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










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









17














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
    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











  • 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











  • 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















17














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
    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











  • 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











  • 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













17












17








17







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 Mar 23 at 1:59

























answered Mar 23 at 1:53









Michael HomerMichael Homer

50.3k8138176




50.3k8138176












  • 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











  • 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











  • 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











  • 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











  • 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
















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













2














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


















  • 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














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


















  • 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








2







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 Mar 23 at 1:56









Prvt_YadvPrvt_Yadv

2,92531327




2,92531327







  • 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





    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










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







-chmod, permissions

Popular posts from this blog

Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?