On May 1, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2010 14:08:21 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 05/01/2010 02:03 PM, Camaleón wrote:
Your perms are missing the "x" flag for the owner so no access is
allowed. I recall a similar situation in another mailing list...
I don't want to *execute* the files, I want to *read* them.
Don't you need exec perms for listing directories? ;-)
***
s...@stt008:~$ mkdir Desktop/test
s...@stt008:~$ ls -l Desktop | grep test
drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 may 1 21:14 test
s...@stt008:~$ ls -aFl Desktop/test
total 1
drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 may 1 21:14 ./
drwxr-xr-x 10 sm01 sm01 752 may 1 21:19 ../
s...@stt008:~$ chmod -x Desktop/test
s...@stt008:~$ ls -l Desktop | grep test
drw-r--r-- 2 sm01 sm01 48 may 1 21:14 test
s...@stt008:~$ ls -aFl Desktop/test
ls: no se puede acceder a Desktop/test/.: Permiso denegado
ls: no se puede acceder a Desktop/test/..: Permiso denegado
total 0
?????????? ? ? ? ? ? .
?????????? ? ? ? ? ? ..
***
Actually, the "x" permission on a directory means "search" (i.e. find
a file in) the directory. If you already know the name (or have
guessed it) of a file in the directory and you have "--x" (no-read, no-
write, yes-search) on the directory and 'r--' (read-only) on the file,
you can read the file even though you can't read the directory.
That's a feature, and it dates back to early days in UNIX.
What you are seeing is a corner case caused by that feature. If you
have "r--" on the directory you can read it, but you can't find any of
the files whose names you can read. So you can't get those files
permission bits or mod-time's etc. So "ls" fails in the bizarre way
you are seeing.
So you can "read" the directory without the "x" bit, but it doesn't do
you a fat load of good.
Enjoy!
Rick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/c6a349ae-e746-49a0-a06c-ad2ae7c8d...@pobox.com