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

michaelsanford

michaelsanford

Translator, Web Developer
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 ?
 
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.
 
Wow my memory served me pretty well !

Code: 
[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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top