Re: "S" file permissions
> (Sorry for the non-Debian-specific question.)
>
> Can someone explain what this execute bit means?
>
> IOW, what is the difference between "s" (suid) and "S" (?)?
>
> I've tried irc and one guy said it was something to do with an old SysV
> standard. Someone else said it's "super-suid" or suid without eXecute (but
> how can you have suid without executing?).
It's "suid/sgid without execute".
The permissions on a file are controlled by 12 bits, grouped roughly
into four groups of three:
suid, sgid, sticky
read, write, execute for user
read, write, execute for group
read, write, execute for other
suid means that when the file is executed, it inherits the user ID
associated with the file. sgid means that when the file is executed,
it inherits the group associated with the file. The sticky bit on
files doesn't mean much anymore, but on directories, it affects how
file permissions are interpreted in the directory.
When you do an "ls -l", it modifies the display for the execute bits
for the user/group/other to show the suid/sgid/sticky bit. For
instance, the listing
-rwSr-sr-x 1 bob student 1024 Feb 22 1998 oddfile
would mean that bob could not run oddfile (no user execute bit set),
but all other students (group execute bit set) and all other users
(other execute bit set) could run oddfile. When "tom", of group
"staff" ran oddfile, it would run as if it were "bob" of group
"student" (because suid and sgid bits are set).
Similarly,
-rwxr-Sr-x 1 bob student 1024 Feb 22 1998 oddfile2
would allow bob and non-students to run oddfile2, and if tom were
running it, it would run as "tom" in group "student".
> Can anyone enlighten me?
>
> (It's not in the info or man pages.)
Check the info listing for "ls". It says there what s, S, t, and T all
mean.
>
> TIA.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@zaphid.dhis.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: