# What is ./System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util ?



## michaelsanford (Oct 14, 2004)

I notice that every time I repair permissions this file always gets set to a new permission (33261 or something).

Firstly, what is this file.

Secondly, now that I think about it, what does this wierd permission number indicate ?


----------



## scruffy (Oct 15, 2004)

Well

 mark@poppacrow:~ % file /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util 
/System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util: Mach-O executable ppc

So, that doesn't help a whole lot...

Recklessly executing it gives us some more hints:

mark@poppacrow:~ % /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util 
usage: /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util action_arg device_arg [mount_point_arg] 
action_arg:
       -p (Probe for mounting)
       -m (Mount)
       -u (Unmount)
       -M (Force Mount)
device_arg:
       device we are acting upon (for example, "disk2s1")
mount_point_arg:
       required for Mount and Force Mount 
Examples:
       /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util -p disk2s1 
       /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util -m disk2s1 /Volumes/mycdrom 

So it's apparently it's used for mounting and unmounting iso9660 filesystems.

The file on my computer has permission mode 0755, rather more straighforward:
mark@poppacrow:~ % ls -l /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  20436 13 Sep 22:03 /System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util

Where is this odd permission mode coming from, anyway?  Can you check that again?  Because, the permission number should only be four digits anyway, if I'm nost mistaken.


----------



## michaelsanford (Oct 16, 2004)

Wow my memory served me pretty well !


```
[amras@Homestar Runner ~]% sudo diskutil repairpermissions /
Password:
Started verify/repair permissions on disk disk0s3 Homestar Runner
Determining correct file permissions.
We are using special permissions for the file or directory ./System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util.  New permissions are 33261
```

Thanks for the insignt scruffy.


----------



## scruffy (Oct 16, 2004)

I decided to repair permissions and see what results I got.  Wow.  I hadn't done that in ages.

Anyway, I did get the same message, but it doesn't look like anything happened - permissions still look like 0755...

Peculiar.


----------



## bobw (Oct 16, 2004)

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107298

Mac OS X: Disk Utility reports "New permissions are 33261"

 You may safely ignore a message that contains "permissions are 33261". This document applies to Mac OS X 10.2.2 or later. 

 In Disk Utility (Mac OS X 10.2.2 through 10.2.8), you see the message: "We are using special permissions for the file or directory ./System/Library/Filesystems/hfs.fs/hfs.util. 
 New permissions are 33261"

 In Disk Utility (Mac OS X 10.3.3 or later), you may see the message: "We are using special permissions for the file or directory ./System/Library/Filesystems/cd9660.fs/cd9660.util. 
 New permissions are 33261"

 This is a status message and not a cause for concern. You may safely ignore it.


----------



## Darkshadow (Oct 17, 2004)

To answer your other question, the permissions for 33261 turn out to be -w-rwS--t - seems a pretty wonky permissions block to me.  Can only be put on a directory, too, not a file.


----------



## scruffy (Oct 17, 2004)

Wait a minute - How are the numbers arranged there?  The way I'm familiar with uses only four digits, each representing a nibble.  So that's why I'm confused by the five digits.  Does that mean there's actually two and a half bytes of permissions info, not two?

If I try to follow your deconstruction of 33261
3 = SGID, sticky = -----S--t
2 = owner write = -w-------
6 = group read write = ---rw----
1 = world execute= --------x
gives me 3261 = -w-rwS--t.  But we're missing one of the 3's in there - the mode it says really is 33261 not 3261.

Anyway, even after running verifypermissions, the mode block is still a much more conventional 0755.

So, I'm wondering if it's just an embarassing bug in verifypermissions, but one that is essentially 'cosmetic' in that it doesn't affect the real disk permissions - which would explain the apple tech note that basically says "Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Ignore the man behind the curtain."


----------



## Darkshadow (Oct 17, 2004)

Yeah, I don't really follow it, either.  I don't know what that first 3 is used for - either way, you get the same permissions (I actually tried both with chmod).  So who knows, maybe it's just ignoring it.

Couldn't tell you if it's a bug or not, either.


----------



## michaelsanford (Oct 18, 2004)

Thanks bobw and everyone else. I'm not worried about the message, I was more curious why the permissions were always invalid and what that wierd extra number was for.

But since I can safely ignore that message, I will


----------

