Which owner group does `ls -l` show?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
When the file owner is part of several groups, how does ls -l decide which group to show? For example, on MacOS, I see
drwx------+ 48 flow2k staff 1536 Feb 5 10:11 Documents
drwxr-xr-x+ 958 flow2k _lpoperator 30656 Feb 22 16:07 Downloads
Here groups shown for the two directories are different (staff and _lpoperator) - what is this based on? I am a member of both groups.
permissions group
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
add a comment |
When the file owner is part of several groups, how does ls -l decide which group to show? For example, on MacOS, I see
drwx------+ 48 flow2k staff 1536 Feb 5 10:11 Documents
drwxr-xr-x+ 958 flow2k _lpoperator 30656 Feb 22 16:07 Downloads
Here groups shown for the two directories are different (staff and _lpoperator) - what is this based on? I am a member of both groups.
permissions group
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
add a comment |
When the file owner is part of several groups, how does ls -l decide which group to show? For example, on MacOS, I see
drwx------+ 48 flow2k staff 1536 Feb 5 10:11 Documents
drwxr-xr-x+ 958 flow2k _lpoperator 30656 Feb 22 16:07 Downloads
Here groups shown for the two directories are different (staff and _lpoperator) - what is this based on? I am a member of both groups.
permissions group
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
When the file owner is part of several groups, how does ls -l decide which group to show? For example, on MacOS, I see
drwx------+ 48 flow2k staff 1536 Feb 5 10:11 Documents
drwxr-xr-x+ 958 flow2k _lpoperator 30656 Feb 22 16:07 Downloads
Here groups shown for the two directories are different (staff and _lpoperator) - what is this based on? I am a member of both groups.
permissions group
permissions group
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
asked Feb 23 at 9:53
flow2kflow2k
197113
197113
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I think this question stems from a misunderstanding of how groups work. The groups listed in ls -l are not the group that the user is potentially in, but the group that the file is owned by. Each file is owned by a user and a group. Often, this user is in the group, but this is not necessary. For example, my user is in the following groups:
$ groups
audio uucp sparhawk plugdev
but not in, say, the group cups. Now, let's create a file.
$ touch foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk sparhawk 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
This is owned by the user sparhawk, and the primary group for me, which is also called sparhawk. Let's now change the group owner of the file.
$ sudo chown sparhawk:cups foo
changed ownership of 'foo' from sparhawk:sparhawk to sparhawk:cups
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk cups 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
You can see that the group that now owns the file is not a group that I am in.
This concept allows precise manipulation of file permissions. For example, you could create a group with members X, Y, and Z, and share files between the three of them. You could further give X write permissions, but only give the others (the group) read permissions.
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
There is rarely a need to usesudoto set permissions.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had usedsudounnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Withoutsudo, I gotchown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, Ichownwith a group I am a member of, thensudois not required. Is it different on your system?
– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners forDocumentsandDownloads. Is this your interpretation as well?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
add a comment |
In traditional permissions a file will belong to one group, no matter how many groups a user belongs to.
When a file is created
The group is set to the primary group of the user.
The user can then move it to any of their groups.
If you have ACLs (Posix ACLs, may differ from ACLs on MacOS)
then there can be more than one group. However ls only shows the first group, and the mode shows the group mask. (This can be confusing. It would be better if it showed ACL for the group name).
A user can not change the first group to any group that they are not a member of. But they can add auxiliary group and user permissions (for any group or user).
You do not need root (sudo) permissions to do any of this.
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't needsudo, but changing ownership may.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn'tchownalways requiresudo?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
@flow2kchgrpcan change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
|
show 2 more comments
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
);
);
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%2f502492%2fwhich-owner-group-does-ls-l-show%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
I think this question stems from a misunderstanding of how groups work. The groups listed in ls -l are not the group that the user is potentially in, but the group that the file is owned by. Each file is owned by a user and a group. Often, this user is in the group, but this is not necessary. For example, my user is in the following groups:
$ groups
audio uucp sparhawk plugdev
but not in, say, the group cups. Now, let's create a file.
$ touch foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk sparhawk 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
This is owned by the user sparhawk, and the primary group for me, which is also called sparhawk. Let's now change the group owner of the file.
$ sudo chown sparhawk:cups foo
changed ownership of 'foo' from sparhawk:sparhawk to sparhawk:cups
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk cups 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
You can see that the group that now owns the file is not a group that I am in.
This concept allows precise manipulation of file permissions. For example, you could create a group with members X, Y, and Z, and share files between the three of them. You could further give X write permissions, but only give the others (the group) read permissions.
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
There is rarely a need to usesudoto set permissions.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had usedsudounnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Withoutsudo, I gotchown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, Ichownwith a group I am a member of, thensudois not required. Is it different on your system?
– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners forDocumentsandDownloads. Is this your interpretation as well?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
add a comment |
I think this question stems from a misunderstanding of how groups work. The groups listed in ls -l are not the group that the user is potentially in, but the group that the file is owned by. Each file is owned by a user and a group. Often, this user is in the group, but this is not necessary. For example, my user is in the following groups:
$ groups
audio uucp sparhawk plugdev
but not in, say, the group cups. Now, let's create a file.
$ touch foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk sparhawk 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
This is owned by the user sparhawk, and the primary group for me, which is also called sparhawk. Let's now change the group owner of the file.
$ sudo chown sparhawk:cups foo
changed ownership of 'foo' from sparhawk:sparhawk to sparhawk:cups
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk cups 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
You can see that the group that now owns the file is not a group that I am in.
This concept allows precise manipulation of file permissions. For example, you could create a group with members X, Y, and Z, and share files between the three of them. You could further give X write permissions, but only give the others (the group) read permissions.
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
There is rarely a need to usesudoto set permissions.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had usedsudounnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Withoutsudo, I gotchown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, Ichownwith a group I am a member of, thensudois not required. Is it different on your system?
– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners forDocumentsandDownloads. Is this your interpretation as well?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
add a comment |
I think this question stems from a misunderstanding of how groups work. The groups listed in ls -l are not the group that the user is potentially in, but the group that the file is owned by. Each file is owned by a user and a group. Often, this user is in the group, but this is not necessary. For example, my user is in the following groups:
$ groups
audio uucp sparhawk plugdev
but not in, say, the group cups. Now, let's create a file.
$ touch foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk sparhawk 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
This is owned by the user sparhawk, and the primary group for me, which is also called sparhawk. Let's now change the group owner of the file.
$ sudo chown sparhawk:cups foo
changed ownership of 'foo' from sparhawk:sparhawk to sparhawk:cups
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk cups 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
You can see that the group that now owns the file is not a group that I am in.
This concept allows precise manipulation of file permissions. For example, you could create a group with members X, Y, and Z, and share files between the three of them. You could further give X write permissions, but only give the others (the group) read permissions.
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
I think this question stems from a misunderstanding of how groups work. The groups listed in ls -l are not the group that the user is potentially in, but the group that the file is owned by. Each file is owned by a user and a group. Often, this user is in the group, but this is not necessary. For example, my user is in the following groups:
$ groups
audio uucp sparhawk plugdev
but not in, say, the group cups. Now, let's create a file.
$ touch foo
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk sparhawk 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
This is owned by the user sparhawk, and the primary group for me, which is also called sparhawk. Let's now change the group owner of the file.
$ sudo chown sparhawk:cups foo
changed ownership of 'foo' from sparhawk:sparhawk to sparhawk:cups
$ ls -l foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 sparhawk cups 0 Feb 23 21:01 foo
You can see that the group that now owns the file is not a group that I am in.
This concept allows precise manipulation of file permissions. For example, you could create a group with members X, Y, and Z, and share files between the three of them. You could further give X write permissions, but only give the others (the group) read permissions.
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
edited Feb 23 at 10:08
ilkkachu
61.9k10102178
61.9k10102178
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
answered Feb 23 at 10:06
SparhawkSparhawk
10.2k744100
10.2k744100
There is rarely a need to usesudoto set permissions.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had usedsudounnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Withoutsudo, I gotchown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, Ichownwith a group I am a member of, thensudois not required. Is it different on your system?
– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners forDocumentsandDownloads. Is this your interpretation as well?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
add a comment |
There is rarely a need to usesudoto set permissions.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had usedsudounnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Withoutsudo, I gotchown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, Ichownwith a group I am a member of, thensudois not required. Is it different on your system?
– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners forDocumentsandDownloads. Is this your interpretation as well?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
There is rarely a need to use
sudo to set permissions.– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
There is rarely a need to use
sudo to set permissions.– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 12:18
1
1
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had used
sudo unnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Without sudo, I got chown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, I chown with a group I am a member of, then sudo is not required. Is it different on your system?– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@ctrl-alt-delor Was that the -1? Even if I had used
sudo unnecessarily, that seems harsh. In any case, I tested the commands as I wrote the answer. Without sudo, I got chown: changing ownership of 'foo': Operation not permitted. If, however, I chown with a group I am a member of, then sudo is not required. Is it different on your system?– Sparhawk
Feb 23 at 12:41
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
@Sorry I can't remember why the -1, maybe I pressed the wrong button. You are correct, that you can not change the owning group, to a group that you are not in. But why do you have to? (maybe sgid for executable) You can use ACLs.
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:32
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners for
Documents and Downloads. Is this your interpretation as well?– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
There was indeed a misunderstanding on my part; thanks for clarifying that up. So, for my case, it would seem some other process, perhaps the OS, had somehow assigned different group owners for
Documents and Downloads. Is this your interpretation as well?– flow2k
Feb 24 at 8:43
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
@flow2k Probably? It could also be a change in the primary group, but either way, I would ask a new question about this.
– Sparhawk
Feb 24 at 9:18
add a comment |
In traditional permissions a file will belong to one group, no matter how many groups a user belongs to.
When a file is created
The group is set to the primary group of the user.
The user can then move it to any of their groups.
If you have ACLs (Posix ACLs, may differ from ACLs on MacOS)
then there can be more than one group. However ls only shows the first group, and the mode shows the group mask. (This can be confusing. It would be better if it showed ACL for the group name).
A user can not change the first group to any group that they are not a member of. But they can add auxiliary group and user permissions (for any group or user).
You do not need root (sudo) permissions to do any of this.
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't needsudo, but changing ownership may.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn'tchownalways requiresudo?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
@flow2kchgrpcan change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
|
show 2 more comments
In traditional permissions a file will belong to one group, no matter how many groups a user belongs to.
When a file is created
The group is set to the primary group of the user.
The user can then move it to any of their groups.
If you have ACLs (Posix ACLs, may differ from ACLs on MacOS)
then there can be more than one group. However ls only shows the first group, and the mode shows the group mask. (This can be confusing. It would be better if it showed ACL for the group name).
A user can not change the first group to any group that they are not a member of. But they can add auxiliary group and user permissions (for any group or user).
You do not need root (sudo) permissions to do any of this.
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't needsudo, but changing ownership may.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn'tchownalways requiresudo?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
@flow2kchgrpcan change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
|
show 2 more comments
In traditional permissions a file will belong to one group, no matter how many groups a user belongs to.
When a file is created
The group is set to the primary group of the user.
The user can then move it to any of their groups.
If you have ACLs (Posix ACLs, may differ from ACLs on MacOS)
then there can be more than one group. However ls only shows the first group, and the mode shows the group mask. (This can be confusing. It would be better if it showed ACL for the group name).
A user can not change the first group to any group that they are not a member of. But they can add auxiliary group and user permissions (for any group or user).
You do not need root (sudo) permissions to do any of this.
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
In traditional permissions a file will belong to one group, no matter how many groups a user belongs to.
When a file is created
The group is set to the primary group of the user.
The user can then move it to any of their groups.
If you have ACLs (Posix ACLs, may differ from ACLs on MacOS)
then there can be more than one group. However ls only shows the first group, and the mode shows the group mask. (This can be confusing. It would be better if it showed ACL for the group name).
A user can not change the first group to any group that they are not a member of. But they can add auxiliary group and user permissions (for any group or user).
You do not need root (sudo) permissions to do any of this.
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
edited Feb 23 at 12:24
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
answered Feb 23 at 12:15
ctrl-alt-delorctrl-alt-delor
12k42561
12k42561
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't needsudo, but changing ownership may.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn'tchownalways requiresudo?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
@flow2kchgrpcan change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
|
show 2 more comments
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't needsudo, but changing ownership may.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn'tchownalways requiresudo?
– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
@flow2kchgrpcan change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
1
1
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't need
sudo, but changing ownership may.– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
Note that this is granting permissions to groups, not changing the "group owner" of the file. It's a subtle difference. Granting permissions doesn't need
sudo, but changing ownership may.– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 13:34
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
What more can an owning group do?
– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 23 at 15:29
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
As you hinted in another comment, setgid gives the process the effective group permission of the group owner.
– Stephen Harris
Feb 23 at 18:12
@StephenHarris Doesn't
chown always require sudo?– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
@StephenHarris Doesn't
chown always require sudo?– flow2k
Feb 24 at 2:39
1
1
@flow2k
chgrp can change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
@flow2k
chgrp can change the group of a file that you own, to any group that you are a member of. And yes changing owner will need privileges (however there are ways around it, if you have write access to the directory).– ctrl-alt-delor
Feb 24 at 14:11
|
show 2 more comments
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%2f502492%2fwhich-owner-group-does-ls-l-show%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
