Under what circumstances would a user/superuser change the permission of a file for its owner? [closed]

What I understand is, you could change the permission of a file for its owner by, say

chmod u=0 file.txt

In this case, we removed r, w and x permission for the owner of this file.

But under what circumstances would we like to do that? If you are the file owner, why would you like to downgrade the permission of your own file?

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

closed as too broad by Rui F Ribeiro, msp9011, Stephen Harris, icarus, Ouki Dec 31 '18 at 1:08

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

For the very same reason people use skins for their mobiles. Because you can. Because it protects them from mishandling.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 28 '18 at 5:03

Thanks Rui! Yeah I later figured out that, I can simply "lock" the file by removing w permission for myself if I would never want to edit it again. That's a use case I guess
– Hang
Dec 29 '18 at 5:12

add a comment |

What I understand is, you could change the permission of a file for its owner by, say

chmod u=0 file.txt

In this case, we removed r, w and x permission for the owner of this file.

But under what circumstances would we like to do that? If you are the file owner, why would you like to downgrade the permission of your own file?

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

closed as too broad by Rui F Ribeiro, msp9011, Stephen Harris, icarus, Ouki Dec 31 '18 at 1:08

1

For the very same reason people use skins for their mobiles. Because you can. Because it protects them from mishandling.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 28 '18 at 5:03

Thanks Rui! Yeah I later figured out that, I can simply "lock" the file by removing w permission for myself if I would never want to edit it again. That's a use case I guess
– Hang
Dec 29 '18 at 5:12

add a comment |

What I understand is, you could change the permission of a file for its owner by, say

chmod u=0 file.txt

In this case, we removed r, w and x permission for the owner of this file.

But under what circumstances would we like to do that? If you are the file owner, why would you like to downgrade the permission of your own file?

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

What I understand is, you could change the permission of a file for its owner by, say

chmod u=0 file.txt

In this case, we removed r, w and x permission for the owner of this file.

But under what circumstances would we like to do that? If you are the file owner, why would you like to downgrade the permission of your own file?

linux permissions file-metadata

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:22

peterh

4,32592957

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:58

Hang

closed as too broad by Rui F Ribeiro, msp9011, Stephen Harris, icarus, Ouki Dec 31 '18 at 1:08

1

For the very same reason people use skins for their mobiles. Because you can. Because it protects them from mishandling.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 28 '18 at 5:03

Thanks Rui! Yeah I later figured out that, I can simply "lock" the file by removing w permission for myself if I would never want to edit it again. That's a use case I guess
– Hang
Dec 29 '18 at 5:12

add a comment |

1

For the very same reason people use skins for their mobiles. Because you can. Because it protects them from mishandling.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 28 '18 at 5:03

Thanks Rui! Yeah I later figured out that, I can simply "lock" the file by removing w permission for myself if I would never want to edit it again. That's a use case I guess
– Hang
Dec 29 '18 at 5:12

For the very same reason people use skins for their mobiles. Because you can. Because it protects them from mishandling.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Dec 28 '18 at 5:03

Thanks Rui! Yeah I later figured out that, I can simply "lock" the file by removing w permission for myself if I would never want to edit it again. That's a use case I guess
– Hang
Dec 29 '18 at 5:12

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

It is not against an intelligent actor, because as owner, they could chmod() the file any time, giving their permissions back.

It might be useful against programs, if you want to avoid your own programs to play with some of your file on any reason.

However, typically it is more feasible to simply move that file away.

It might be also useful, if the underlying filesystem driver doesn't support chmod(). For example, davfs or vfat file modes are determined by the mount flags and not by the filesystem metadata.

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

It is not against an intelligent actor, because as owner, they could chmod() the file any time, giving their permissions back.

It might be useful against programs, if you want to avoid your own programs to play with some of your file on any reason.

However, typically it is more feasible to simply move that file away.

It might be also useful, if the underlying filesystem driver doesn't support chmod(). For example, davfs or vfat file modes are determined by the mount flags and not by the filesystem metadata.

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

add a comment |

It is not against an intelligent actor, because as owner, they could chmod() the file any time, giving their permissions back.

It might be useful against programs, if you want to avoid your own programs to play with some of your file on any reason.

However, typically it is more feasible to simply move that file away.

It might be also useful, if the underlying filesystem driver doesn't support chmod(). For example, davfs or vfat file modes are determined by the mount flags and not by the filesystem metadata.

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

add a comment |

It is not against an intelligent actor, because as owner, they could chmod() the file any time, giving their permissions back.

It might be useful against programs, if you want to avoid your own programs to play with some of your file on any reason.

However, typically it is more feasible to simply move that file away.

It might be also useful, if the underlying filesystem driver doesn't support chmod(). For example, davfs or vfat file modes are determined by the mount flags and not by the filesystem metadata.

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

It is not against an intelligent actor, because as owner, they could chmod() the file any time, giving their permissions back.

It might be useful against programs, if you want to avoid your own programs to play with some of your file on any reason.

However, typically it is more feasible to simply move that file away.

It might be also useful, if the underlying filesystem driver doesn't support chmod(). For example, davfs or vfat file modes are determined by the mount flags and not by the filesystem metadata.

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

edited Dec 31 '18 at 17:01

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:10

peterh

4,32592957

add a comment |

搜尋此網誌

mjhjmtu