Skip to main content

linux - Write permission to a specific file without changing ownership



As I understand it, to give a write permission to a user I can either change the owner of the file to that user and give it "user write permission" (which I don't want to do), or keep the same owner but add this user to the file's group and give the group a write permission. But the latter will give this user permission to all other files associated with this group (whatever those permissions may be).



So say if the file is owned by user1 and group user1, most user1 files also have user1 group. If I add user2 to group user1, user2 will have gained extra permissions. The only way I can think of is create a group for this specific file, change the group with chown and then add user2 to this group. Is this correct? It seems to me that this creates a lot of complexity if I have to do this for every file. I come from a windows background and over there you simply right-click the file and add the user to the file's permission. So no need to create 20 groups for 20 different files, then add the users to all 20 groups, etc.




Can anyone enlighten me?



Thanks.


Answer



That's the main way to grant permissions in unix, yes.



The idea is that you usually wouldn't have 20 groups for the 20 different files and add the users to all 20 groups. Instead, if you have a few users who need access to a number of files, you'd add one group containing those users, and have all 20 files owned by that one group.



The advantage to using groups instead of adding single users is in an organization, where people will gain or lose privileges as they change jobs. Then, instead of adding or removing them from a large number of files, you'd just add or remove them from a group.




However, for the cases where normal user/group/other privileges aren't flexible enough for your needs, there's an alternative, called Access Control List or ACLs. ACLs will grant or revoke permissions for users or groups in addition to the old-style user/group permissions.



To add a user to the ACL for a file, use setfacl. Example:



setfacl -m u:lisa:r /path/to/file


will grant the user "lisa" read access to the file.



There's more info in the man pages for setfacl and getfacl.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able