I'm getting a permissions error in CentOS 7 when I try to create a hard link. With the same permissions set in CentOS 6 I do not get the error. The issue centers on group permissions. I'm not sure which OS version is right and which is wrong.

Let me illustrate what's happening. In my current working directory, I have two directories: source and destination. At the start, destination is empty; source contains a text file.

[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# ls -l
total 0
drwxrwxrwx. 2 root root  6 Jun 12 14:33 destination
drwxrwxrwx. 2 root root 21 Jun 12 14:33 source
[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# ls -l destination/
total 0
[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# ls -l source/
total 4
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 8 Jun 12 14:20 test.txt
[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# 

As you can see, regarding the permissions the two directories are 777, with both the owner and group set to root. The text file's owner and group are also both set to root. However, the text file's permissions are read-write for the owner but read-only for the group.

When I'm logged in as root, I have no problem creating a hard-link in the destination directory pointing to the text file (in the source directory).

[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# ln source/test.txt destination/
[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# ls destination/

However, if I log in as another user, in this case, admin, I cannot create the link. I get: "Operation not permitted."

[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# rm -f destination/test.txt 
[root@tc-dlx-nba cwd]# su admin
bash-4.2$ pwd
bash-4.2$ ln source/test.txt destination/
ln: failed to create hard link ‘destination/test.txt’ => ‘source/test.txt’: Operation not permitted

What happens actually makes sense to me, but since the above is allowed in CentOS 6, I wanted to check to see if I was misunderstanding something. To me, it seems like a bug in CentOS 6 that has been fixed in CentOS 7.

Anyone know what gives? Am I right believing that the above behavior is the correct behavior? Is it CentOS 6 that is correct? Or, are both right and perhaps there is some subtle group permissions issue that I'm missing? Thanks.

Edit: I tried the same test just now on a Debian v7 VM that I have. Debian agrees with CentOS 7: "Operation not permitted."

Edit #2: I just tried the same thing on Mac OS X (Yosemite). That worked the way CentOS 6 did. In other words, it allowed the link to be created. (Note: On OS X, the root group is called "wheel." That's the only difference, as far as I can tell.)

  • 1
    It seems like user admin does not have permissions to affect the link. The ownership of the link is down to who owns the files/folders being linked. Admin is not the same as root. That is my 2 cents. As admin try using 'sudo ln source/test.txt destination/' You might also want to start using the -s flag. When you create a link without the -s flag, you are making a hard link. It is a recipe for disaster because if the linked file/folder is destroyed, so is the original. With -s 'soft links' the destruction of the linked to file does not affect the original.
    – Baazigar
    Jun 12, 2015 at 20:21
  • @Baazigar - Thanks. I've looked into that. Here's my issue. I inherited a Perl application that is relying on CentOS 6's behavior (being able to create the link). I am migrating the application to CentOS 7. This is really just a small issue in the overall scheme of things, but I don't know why the Perl link function is being used, instead of the Perl File::Copy function. I think it would be sufficient to just copy the file. However, I have to do my due diligence before changing things -- and there is (of course) no documentation or comments to explain the original decision that I've inherited.
    – Mario
    Jun 12, 2015 at 20:42
  • Without documentation or justification for how it is now, your solution is equally valid assuming it works, and more valid if it works and has documentation. I don't think there was a change in centos handling of the links. I think it is more likely something you haven't come across yet on the old box, maybe something in /etc/group or someplace else that explains the apparent anomaly.
    – Baazigar
    Jun 12, 2015 at 21:08
  • @Baazigar - I just tried the same thing in Mac OS X, though I had to use the group "wheel" (root's group) in place of the group "root." As you might know, OS X is a BSD variant. That worked the same way CentOS 6 worked—in other words, it allowed the link to be made. I don't know what's right, at this point. Shouldn't there be one unified practice across what are (mostly) POSIX-compliant systems?
    – Mario
    Jun 13, 2015 at 1:25

1 Answer 1


I spun up some fresh CentOS 6 and 7 vm's and was able to recreate the exact behavior you showed. After doing some digging, it turns out that this is actually a change in the kernel regarding default behavior with respect to hard and soft links for the sake of security. The following pages pointed me in the right direction:



If you make the file world writable, your admin user will be able to create the hard link.

To revert to the behavior of CentOS 6 system wide, new kernel parameters were added. Set the following in /etc/sysctl.conf:

fs.protected_hardlinks = 0
fs.protected_symlinks = 0

then run

sysctl -p

As for why your program opts to use links instead of copying files, why create an exact copy of a file you need to use when you can just create an entry that points to the original blocks? This saves disk space and the operation is less costly in terms of CPU and I/O. The new hard link is the same file, just with different metadata/inode. If you were to delete the original file after creating a hard link, it won't affect the link. A file is only 'deleted' once all links have been removed.

  • Thank you. I will take a look at these links a little later today. (Have an upvote in the meantime!) I understand the difference between a hard link and a copy. The program I've inherited, however, is creating a link from the source file to a "download" area (via a web application front-end). I don't think disk space is an issue, since it's just a text file. Also, just going by what "download" commonly means, I don't understand how a link fits in: semantically, a copy would seem to make more sense. (I worry there is some other behavior in the program that relies on a link. I'll have to check.)
    – Mario
    Jun 13, 2015 at 17:08
  • 2
    "I understand the difference between a hard link and a copy." Righton, I was just writing my answer with a general audience in mind for future users perusing that may not know.
    – Sean
    Jun 13, 2015 at 17:40
  • I'm all for writing with a general audience in mind :-) I'll investigate the best fix for the application, on Monday. Thankfully, I have a lot of leeway. (My only restraint is "you break it; you bought it"!) I'm marking yours as the accepted answer. Thanks, again!
    – Mario
    Jun 13, 2015 at 19:27
  • P.S. I'm guessing that the CentOS people have opted for protected links by default. (What I get from the links you've supplied is that this is a contentious issue.)
    – Mario
    Jun 13, 2015 at 19:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .