Why the “ls” command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?












18















I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:



-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt


Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?










share|improve this question









New contributor




user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    18















    I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:



    -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
    -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt


    Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      18












      18








      18








      I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:



      -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
      -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt


      Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I believe that the FAT32 file system does not support file permissions, however when I do ls -l on a FAT32 partition, ls -l shows that the files have permissions:



      -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 11 Mar 20 15:43 file1.txt
      -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 5 Mar 20 15:49 file2.txt


      Why is ls -l displaying the permissions of files?







      linux permissions filesystems fat fat32






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      user342731 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




      user342731 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









      Jeff Schaller

      43.8k1161141




      43.8k1161141






      New contributor




      user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      user342731user342731

      963




      963




      New contributor




      user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      user342731 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          44














          The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).



          So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.



          (* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)






          share|improve this answer



















          • 4





            And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

            – jamesqf
            yesterday






          • 4





            @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

            – ilkkachu
            yesterday











          • I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

            – forest
            2 hours ago



















          13














          But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.



          You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.






          share|improve this answer































            2














            ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.



            Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.



            There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.






            share|improve this answer























              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
              });


              }
              });






              user342731 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%2f507441%2fwhy-the-ls-command-is-showing-the-permissions-of-files-in-a-fat32-partition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              44














              The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).



              So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.



              (* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)






              share|improve this answer



















              • 4





                And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

                – jamesqf
                yesterday






              • 4





                @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

                – ilkkachu
                yesterday











              • I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

                – forest
                2 hours ago
















              44














              The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).



              So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.



              (* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)






              share|improve this answer



















              • 4





                And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

                – jamesqf
                yesterday






              • 4





                @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

                – ilkkachu
                yesterday











              • I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

                – forest
                2 hours ago














              44












              44








              44







              The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).



              So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.



              (* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)






              share|improve this answer













              The filesystem as stored on disk doesn't store file permissions, but the filesystem driver has to provide them to the operating system since they are an integral part of the Unix filesystem concept(*).



              So, the driver fakes some permissions, same ones for all files. The permissions along with the files' owner and group are configurable at mount time. See "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page.



              (* Consider what would happen if a file didn't have any permission bits at all? Would it be the same as 0777, i.e. access to all; or the same as 0000, i.e. no access to anyone? But both of those are file permissions, so why not show them? Or do something more useful and set some sensible permissions.)







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              ilkkachuilkkachu

              62.1k10103179




              62.1k10103179








              • 4





                And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

                – jamesqf
                yesterday






              • 4





                @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

                – ilkkachu
                yesterday











              • I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

                – forest
                2 hours ago














              • 4





                And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

                – jamesqf
                yesterday






              • 4





                @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

                – ilkkachu
                yesterday











              • I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

                – forest
                2 hours ago








              4




              4





              And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

              – jamesqf
              yesterday





              And the reason it does fake the permissions is that otherwise ls, and any other program that looked at file permissions (even just your code trying to read a file) would have to have the logic to handle all the different file system organizations built in.

              – jamesqf
              yesterday




              4




              4





              @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

              – ilkkachu
              yesterday





              @jamesqf, yes, and even the system call interfaces don't have the option of "not having permissions", since the permissions have always been there. (That was what I was thinking when I wrote they're an "integral part".) Therefore, the permissions always shall be there, too, and things like ACLs are made so as to keep them meaningful.

              – ilkkachu
              yesterday













              I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

              – forest
              2 hours ago





              I've usually seen mode 777 for all files in FAT filesystems (FAT16 with an old driver, at least).

              – forest
              2 hours ago













              13














              But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.



              You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.






              share|improve this answer




























                13














                But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.



                You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.






                share|improve this answer


























                  13












                  13








                  13







                  But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.



                  You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.






                  share|improve this answer













                  But the files do have permissions. User john has RW access, while some random user only has read access. These permissions didn’t come from the filesystem itself but rather from mount options (-o uid/gid/umask), which doesn’t make them any less real.



                  You could have multiple vfat partitions mounted with different options and you could use ls to determine what those options were. You could even use mount --bind to have a single directory contain files from different vfat partitions, and ls would correctly show what permissions have been specified for each file.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky

                  2534




                  2534























                      2














                      ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.



                      Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.



                      There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.






                      share|improve this answer




























                        2














                        ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.



                        Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.



                        There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          2












                          2








                          2







                          ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.



                          Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.



                          There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.






                          share|improve this answer













                          ls doesn't know about FAT32, it only knows about the Virtual Filesystem (VFS) interface exposed by the kernel with POSIX open / readdir / stat system calls.



                          Linux doesn't support the concept of files that don't have user/group/other permission bits, struct stat simply contains a mode_t st_mode; member (and uid, gid members) that the kernel must fill out when ls -l makes stat(2) system calls.



                          There's no special code that means "not available" or "not applicable" for any of those fields, so the kernel's vfat driver must make something up. FAT16/FAT32 does have a read-only flag, but otherwise the owner/group come from mount options, and so does a umask.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 8 hours ago









                          Peter CordesPeter Cordes

                          4,4331433




                          4,4331433






















                              user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                              user342731 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              user342731 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%2f507441%2fwhy-the-ls-command-is-showing-the-permissions-of-files-in-a-fat32-partition%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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How did Captain America manage to do this?

                              迪纳利

                              南乌拉尔铁路局