Is there a way to find all symbolic links that don't point anywere?

find ./ -type l

will give me all symbolic links, but makes no distinction between links that go somewhere and links that don't.

I'm currently doing:

find ./ -type l -exec file {} \; | grep broken

But I'm wondering what alternate solutions exist.

13 Answers 13


I'd strongly suggest not to use find -L for the task (see below for explanation). Here are some other ways to do this:

  • If you want to use a "pure find" method, and assuming the GNU implementation of find, it should rather look like this:

    find . -xtype l

    (xtype is a test performed on a dereferenced link)

  • portably (though less efficiently), you can also exec test -e from within the find command:

    find . -type l ! -exec test -e {} \; -print
  • Even some grep trick could be better (i.e., safer) than find -L, but not exactly such as presented in the question (which greps in entire output lines, including filenames):

    find . -type l -exec sh -c 'file -b "$1" | grep -q "^broken"' sh {} \; -print

The find -L trick quoted by solo from commandlinefu looks nice and hacky, but it has one very dangerous pitfall: All the symlinks are followed. Consider directory with the contents presented below:

$ ls -l
total 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 michal users  6 May 15 08:12 link_1 -> nonexistent1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 michal users  6 May 15 08:13 link_2 -> nonexistent2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 michal users  6 May 15 08:13 link_3 -> nonexistent3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 michal users  6 May 15 08:13 link_4 -> nonexistent4
lrwxrwxrwx 1 michal users 11 May 15 08:20 link_out -> /usr/share/

If you run find -L . -type l in that directory, all /usr/share/ would be searched as well (and that can take really long)1. For a find command that is "immune to outgoing links", don't use -L.

1 This may look like a minor inconvenience (the command will "just" take long to traverse all /usr/share) – but can have more severe consequences. For instance, consider chroot environments: They can exist in some subdirectory of the main filesystem and contain symlinks to absolute locations. Those links could seem to be broken for the "outside" system, because they only point to proper places once you've entered the chroot. I also recall that some bootloader used symlinks under /boot that only made sense in an initial boot phase, when the boot partition was mounted as /.

So if you use a find -L command to find and then delete broken symlinks from some harmless-looking directory, you might even break your system...

  • 16
    I think -type l is redundant since -xtype l will operate as -type l on non-links. So find -xtype l is probably all you need. Thanks for this approach.
    – quornian
    Commented Nov 17, 2012 at 21:56
  • 4
    Be aware that those solutions don't work for all filesystem types. For example it won't work for checking if /proc/XXX/exe link is broken. For this, use test -e "$(readlink /proc/XXX/exe)".
    – qwertzguy
    Commented Jan 8, 2015 at 21:37
  • 10
    @Flimm find . -xtype l means "find all symlinks whose (ultimate) target files are symlinks". But the ultimate target of a symlink cannot be a symlink, otherwise we can still follow the link and it is not the ultimate target. Since there is no such symlinks, we can define them as something else, i.e. broken symlinks.
    – weakish
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 4:57
  • 2
    @weakish I would rather say that -xtype follows the chain of symbolic links and evaluates the file at the end, which can only be a symbolic link in case it is broken. Commented Apr 13, 2016 at 16:40
  • 4
    The warning at the end is useful, but note that this does not apply to the -L hack but rather to (blindly) removing broken symlinks in general. Commented Jul 15, 2016 at 0:22

As rozcietrzewiacz has already commented, find -L can have unexpected consequence of expanding the search into symlinked directories, so isn't the optimal approach. What no one has mentioned yet is that

find /path/to/search -xtype l

is the more concise, and logically identical command to

find /path/to/search -type l -xtype l

None of the solutions presented so far will detect cyclic symlinks, which is another type of breakage. this question addresses portability. To summarize, the portable way to find broken symbolic links, including cyclic links, is:

find /path/to/search -type l -exec test ! -e {} \; -print

For more details, see this question or ynform.org. Of course, the definitive source for all this is the findutils documentaton.

  • 2
    Short, consice, and addresses the find -L pitfall as well as cyclical links. +1
    – Flimm
    Commented Oct 7, 2014 at 13:00
  • 3
    Nice. The last one works on MacOSX as well, while @rozcietrzewiacz's answer didn't.
    – neu242
    Commented Aug 1, 2016 at 10:03
  • 2
    @neu242 That is likely because -xtype is not specified in POSIX and indeed if you look at find(1) in macOS it has -type but not -xtype.
    – Pryftan
    Commented Oct 1, 2019 at 14:35
  • find $HOME -type l -exec test ! -e {} \; -print prints a lot of 'permission denied' messages, namely from the Waydroid config folder. Fedora 37.
    – user598527
    Commented Mar 20, 2023 at 15:01
  • find /home/user -type l -exec test ! -e {} \; -print | less also outputs the (open profile) lock files for all Firefox, Thunderbird and Tor browser. Should be left untouched, I can only assume.
    – user598527
    Commented Mar 20, 2023 at 15:06

The symlinks command from http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/file/symlinks-1.4.tar.gz can be used to identify symlinks with a variety of characteristics. For instance:

$ rm a
$ ln -s a b
$ symlinks .
dangling: /tmp/b -> a
  • Is this tool available for osx?
    – qed
    Commented Jul 27, 2014 at 20:32
  • Never mind, got it compiled.
    – qed
    Commented Jul 27, 2014 at 20:51
  • 4
    Apparently symlinks is pre-installed on Fedora. Commented Apr 11, 2015 at 22:11
  • For cases where the return from said symlinks command might be too cluttered, can use symlinks . | grep dangling .
    – Digger
    Commented Dec 10, 2022 at 22:54
  • To recurse and filter out matches: symlinks -r . | grep '^dangling:'
    – user598527
    Commented Mar 8 at 13:51

If you need a different behavior whether the link is broken or cyclic you can also use %Y with find:

$ touch a
$ ln -s a b  # link to existing target
$ ln -s c d  # link to non-existing target
$ ln -s e e  # link to itself
$ find . -type l -exec test ! -e {} \; -printf '%Y %p\n' \
   | while read type link; do
         case "$type" in
         N) echo "do something with broken link $link" ;;
         L) echo "do something with cyclic link $link" ;;
do something with broken link ./d
do something with cyclic link ./e

This example is copied from this post (site deleted).


  • Yet another shorthand for those whose find command does not support xtype can be derived from this: find . type l -printf "%Y %p\n" | grep -w '^N'. As andy beat me to it with the same (basic) idea in his script, I was reluctant to write it as separate answer. :) Commented Jun 25, 2015 at 0:28

I believe adding the -L flag to your command will allow you do get rid of the grep:

$ find -L . -type l


from the manual:


Cause the file information and file type (see stat(2)) returned for each symbolic link to be those of the file referenced by the link, not the link itself. If the referenced file does not exist, the file information and type will be for the link itself.


For zsh users:

rm -v -- **/*(-@)

To also remove hidden ones:

rm -v -- **/*(D-@)

from zsh user guide (search for broken symlinks)


Simple no-brainer answer, which is a variation on OP's version. Sometimes, you just want something easy to type or remember:

find . | xargs file | grep -i "broken symbolic link"

Or, if you need to handle NULL terminators:

find . -print0 | xargs -0 file | grep -i "broken symbolic link"
  • In similar spirit, you could also do find . > /dev/null then just look at the stderr output. Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 1:18

find . -xtype l will skip broken links pointing to files in inaccessible directories. You can just search for links to inaccessible files:

find . -type l ! -readable

This works correctly for cyclic symlinks and is also more efficient than using -exec test … with find command.


I use this for my case and it works quite well, as I know the directory to look for broken symlinks:

find -L $path -maxdepth 1 -type l

and my folder does include a link to /usr/share but it doesn't traverse it. Cross-device links and those that are valid for chroots, etc. are still a pitfall but for my use case it's sufficient.


find -L . -type l |xargs symlinks will give you info whether the link exists or not on a per foundfile basis.


This will print out the names of broken symlinks in the current directory.

for l in $(find . -type l); do cd $(dirname $l); if [ ! -e "$(readlink $(basename $l))" ]; then echo $l; fi; cd - > /dev/null; done

Works in Bash. Don't know about other shells.


Most comprehensive (imho) command to find broken symlinks without crossing partition bounds. Note, that symlink arguments must be containing directories, not symlinks themselves.

find . -xdev -type d \
| stdbuf -oL xargs -d '\n' symlinks \
| stdbuf -oL grep -e '^dangling'

I took

find ./ -type l -exec file {} \; | that.awk

and piped it into an Awk script, that way you can do whatever.

#!/bin/awk -f
# ==============================================================================
# ==============================================================================
   sub(/^ /,"",$2)               # remove leading spc
   p=index($2,"to")              # 'to' pointer
   s=substr($2,1,p-2)            # status
   t=substr($2,p+3)              # target

      case /^broken.*/ :
         printf("%"w"s %s\n","target:",t)
         printf("%"w"s %s\n","source:",$1)
         printf("%"w"s %s\n","status:",s)
#      default:
#         printf("\n")
#         printf("%"w"s %s\n","target:",t)
# ==============================================================================
# ==============================================================================
# functions
# ==============================================================================

You must log in to answer this question.

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