Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I have a symlink with these permissions:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 myuser myuser 38 Aug 18 00:36 npm -> ../lib/node_modules/npm/bin/npm-cli.js*
The symlink is located in a .tar.gz archive. Now when I unpack the tar.gz archive using maven the symlink is no longer valid. I'm therefore trying to reconstruct the symlink. First I create the symlink using ln but how do I set the same permissions as the original symlink?
You can make a new symlink and move it to the location of the old link.
ln -s <new_location> npm2
mv -f npm2 npm
That will preserve the link ownership. Alternatively, you can use chown to set the link's ownership manually.
chown -h myuser:myuser npm
On most systems, symlink permissions don't matter. When using the symlink, the permissions of the components of symlink's target will be checked. However, on some systems they do matter. MacOS requires read permission on the link for readlink, and NetBSD's symperm mount option forces link permissions checks on read and traversal. On those systems (and their relatives, including FreeBSD and OpenBSD) there is a equivalent -h option to chmod.
chmod -h 777 npm
When you try to use chmod to set the link's permissions, the actually you do is to set the permissions of the link's target.The link's permissions are meaningless.
test with -rw-rw-r-- root root, for rm test I receive the prompt rm: remove write-protected regular empty file 'test'? The solution is to place sensitive files in directories for which users have read-only access.
Feb 12, 2019 at 4:54
When you have a link like:
link -> foo/bar
and want to change it to:
link -> new/target
There are two cases to consider:
foo/bar is not a directory or doesn't exist or you don't have search access to foo. Then
ln -s new/target link
will fail because link already exists, but you can overcome that by using the standard:
ln -fs new/target link
foo/bar is a directory (and you have search permission to foo to be able to determine that foo/bar is a directory). In that case, when you do:
ln -s new/target link
or
ln -fs new/target link
That's understood as creating a new target symlink inside the link directory (link is a directory because it's a symlink to the foo/bar directory). So you'll actually create a:
foo/bar/target -> new/target
To overcome that, GNU ln has a -T option for the link name to always be considered as link name, and not as a directory to create the link(s) in. So, with GNU ln:
ln -fsT new/target link
will work. Like before, it will remove the original link symlink and create it anew with new/target as the target (and the process' euid and egid as the owner).
GNU ln also has a -n option. It works like -T except when link is actually a real directory in which case it will still create the symlink inside that directory (instead of failing with an error).
Portably, your best option is to remove the link first and then recreate it:
rm -f link && ln -s new/target link
On most systems, permissions on symlinks are ignored and generally fixed to rwxrwxrwx.
On systems where symlink permissions matter (like OS/X where you need read permission to a symlink to be able to resolve its target), there's generally a way to change them (chmod -h on OS/X).
Ownership, while like above not relevant for access to the file pointed to by the symlink on most systems, can have some other relevance wrt the t bit of the parent directory or quotas...) and there's a standard command to change it:
chown -h user[:group] the-link
chgrp -h group the-link
If you really need to change symlinks permission (usually meaningless, as written in other answers), I was successful with using -R option of chown:
chown -R myuser:mygroup link
If -R was not used, the permissions were not changed.
chown because -R implied -P there, however that's not guaranteed and won't work in some other chown implementations. The standard way to change the symlink ownership is with the -h option. I've just updated the accepted answer which was incorrect.
Oct 23, 2015 at 8:39