Why is the “ls” command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowBase permissions on a fat32 usb driveChanging file permissions of auto-mounted hot-plugged FAT32 USB partitionWhy are 666 the default file creation permissions?How do file permissions work with partition filesystem?openSUSE Live USB with windows-accessible FAT32 partitionOne of my pdf files in my apache server can be accessed the other can't, with the same permissions and same directoryHow to rename multiple files by adding a common string at beginning of the files?Parted: Creating fat32 partition on new drive doesn't mount properly, uses loop deviceList complete file name on a local apache httpd serverHow to grep the rows with same column in different files and print specific column and add onto the original file?

Why the difference in type-inference over the as-pattern in two similar function definitions?

I want to make a picture in physics with TikZ. Can you help me?

How to get from Geneva Airport to Metabief?

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?

Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?

Display a text message if the shortcode is not found?

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

How to place nodes around a circle from some initial angle?

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Beveled cylinder cutout

How to scale a tikZ image which is within a figure environment

Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?

I'm self employed. Can I contribute to my previous employers 401k?

Domestic-to-international connection at Orlando (MCO)

Is there a way to bypass a component in series in a circuit if that component fails?

Are police here, aren't itthey?

Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons

What benefits would be gained by using human laborers instead of drones in deep sea mining?

How to count occurrences of text in a file?

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

If a black hole is created from light, can this black hole then move at the speed of light?

unclear about Dynamic Binding

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"



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



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowBase permissions on a fat32 usb driveChanging file permissions of auto-mounted hot-plugged FAT32 USB partitionWhy are 666 the default file creation permissions?How do file permissions work with partition filesystem?openSUSE Live USB with windows-accessible FAT32 partitionOne of my pdf files in my apache server can be accessed the other can't, with the same permissions and same directoryHow to rename multiple files by adding a common string at beginning of the files?Parted: Creating fat32 partition on new drive doesn't mount properly, uses loop deviceList complete file name on a local apache httpd serverHow to grep the rows with same column in different files and print specific column and add onto the original file?










37















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
























  • Good question! Welcome

    – 0xSheepdog
    yesterday















37















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
























  • Good question! Welcome

    – 0xSheepdog
    yesterday













37












37








37


1






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
















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















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 22 at 0:56









psmears

44728




44728










asked Mar 20 at 13:52









user342731user342731

19123




19123












  • Good question! Welcome

    – 0xSheepdog
    yesterday

















  • Good question! Welcome

    – 0xSheepdog
    yesterday
















Good question! Welcome

– 0xSheepdog
yesterday





Good question! Welcome

– 0xSheepdog
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















71














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 and the system call interfaces have no way of presenting that the permissions are missing.



Also 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 have a way to set some sensible permissions.



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. These are described under "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page:




Mount options for fat

(Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems.)



uid=valueandgid=value

Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the UID and GID of the current process.)



umask=value

Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value
is given in octal.



dmask=value

Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.



fmask=value

Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.




Note that the permissions are presented as masks, so the final permissions are the negation of the mask. fmask=0133 would result in all files having permissions 0644, or rw-r--r--.



Also, the defaults are inherited from the process calling mount(), so if you call mount from the command line, the shell's umask will apply.






share|improve this answer




















  • 7





    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
    Mar 20 at 16:50






  • 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
    Mar 20 at 16:59






  • 2





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

    – forest
    Mar 21 at 20:13






  • 2





    @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

    – Ruslan
    Mar 22 at 14:21












  • But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

    – mosvy
    Mar 23 at 9:24


















21














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






























    14














    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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f507441%2fwhy-is-the-ls-command-showing-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









      71














      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 and the system call interfaces have no way of presenting that the permissions are missing.



      Also 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 have a way to set some sensible permissions.



      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. These are described under "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page:




      Mount options for fat

      (Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems.)



      uid=valueandgid=value

      Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the UID and GID of the current process.)



      umask=value

      Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value
      is given in octal.



      dmask=value

      Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.



      fmask=value

      Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.




      Note that the permissions are presented as masks, so the final permissions are the negation of the mask. fmask=0133 would result in all files having permissions 0644, or rw-r--r--.



      Also, the defaults are inherited from the process calling mount(), so if you call mount from the command line, the shell's umask will apply.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 7





        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
        Mar 20 at 16:50






      • 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
        Mar 20 at 16:59






      • 2





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

        – forest
        Mar 21 at 20:13






      • 2





        @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

        – Ruslan
        Mar 22 at 14:21












      • But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

        – mosvy
        Mar 23 at 9:24















      71














      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 and the system call interfaces have no way of presenting that the permissions are missing.



      Also 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 have a way to set some sensible permissions.



      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. These are described under "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page:




      Mount options for fat

      (Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems.)



      uid=valueandgid=value

      Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the UID and GID of the current process.)



      umask=value

      Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value
      is given in octal.



      dmask=value

      Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.



      fmask=value

      Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.




      Note that the permissions are presented as masks, so the final permissions are the negation of the mask. fmask=0133 would result in all files having permissions 0644, or rw-r--r--.



      Also, the defaults are inherited from the process calling mount(), so if you call mount from the command line, the shell's umask will apply.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 7





        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
        Mar 20 at 16:50






      • 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
        Mar 20 at 16:59






      • 2





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

        – forest
        Mar 21 at 20:13






      • 2





        @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

        – Ruslan
        Mar 22 at 14:21












      • But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

        – mosvy
        Mar 23 at 9:24













      71












      71








      71







      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 and the system call interfaces have no way of presenting that the permissions are missing.



      Also 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 have a way to set some sensible permissions.



      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. These are described under "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page:




      Mount options for fat

      (Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems.)



      uid=valueandgid=value

      Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the UID and GID of the current process.)



      umask=value

      Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value
      is given in octal.



      dmask=value

      Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.



      fmask=value

      Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.




      Note that the permissions are presented as masks, so the final permissions are the negation of the mask. fmask=0133 would result in all files having permissions 0644, or rw-r--r--.



      Also, the defaults are inherited from the process calling mount(), so if you call mount from the command line, the shell's umask will apply.






      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 and the system call interfaces have no way of presenting that the permissions are missing.



      Also 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 have a way to set some sensible permissions.



      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. These are described under "Mount options for fat" in the mount(8) man page:




      Mount options for fat

      (Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of the msdos, umsdos and vfat filesystems.)



      uid=valueandgid=value

      Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the UID and GID of the current process.)



      umask=value

      Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value
      is given in octal.



      dmask=value

      Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.



      fmask=value

      Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.




      Note that the permissions are presented as masks, so the final permissions are the negation of the mask. fmask=0133 would result in all files having permissions 0644, or rw-r--r--.



      Also, the defaults are inherited from the process calling mount(), so if you call mount from the command line, the shell's umask will apply.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Mar 22 at 16:17

























      answered Mar 20 at 13:56









      ilkkachuilkkachu

      62.8k10103180




      62.8k10103180







      • 7





        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
        Mar 20 at 16:50






      • 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
        Mar 20 at 16:59






      • 2





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

        – forest
        Mar 21 at 20:13






      • 2





        @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

        – Ruslan
        Mar 22 at 14:21












      • But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

        – mosvy
        Mar 23 at 9:24












      • 7





        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
        Mar 20 at 16:50






      • 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
        Mar 20 at 16:59






      • 2





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

        – forest
        Mar 21 at 20:13






      • 2





        @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

        – Ruslan
        Mar 22 at 14:21












      • But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

        – mosvy
        Mar 23 at 9:24







      7




      7





      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
      Mar 20 at 16:50





      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
      Mar 20 at 16:50




      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
      Mar 20 at 16:59





      @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
      Mar 20 at 16:59




      2




      2





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

      – forest
      Mar 21 at 20:13





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

      – forest
      Mar 21 at 20:13




      2




      2





      @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

      – Ruslan
      Mar 22 at 14:21






      @forest that depends on umask mount option, for which the default value is umask of mount process (see the man page linked to in this answer).

      – Ruslan
      Mar 22 at 14:21














      But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

      – mosvy
      Mar 23 at 9:24





      But FAT does store some permissions/attributes (read-only, hidden, system, etc), even if they do not map exactly to the Unix ones. chmod ugo-w on a file will turn the read-only attribute on. Using the fmask=0133 option as in your example will not result in all files having the 0644 permission. What FAT absolutely does not store is a uid and a gid for each file. Please clarify; the answer as it stands is highly misleading.

      – mosvy
      Mar 23 at 9:24













      21














      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



























        21














        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

























          21












          21








          21







          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 Mar 20 at 17:27









          Roman OdaiskyRoman Odaisky

          3334




          3334





















              14














              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



























                14














                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

























                  14












                  14








                  14







                  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 Mar 21 at 14:38









                  Peter CordesPeter Cordes

                  4,5731434




                  4,5731434



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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-is-the-ls-command-showing-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

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029