Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Wee it seems that sudoers file is used only to gain access to some commands. but it cannot be used to give permission to a user to modify the contents of a file
Right...so why can't you do what you want, since you just (essentially) said that sudo can do it?
Give ONE user permission to use ONE command. That command can be "vi <some file name>". Change the ownership of the file to only allow root to access it, so then either root or that one user (via "sudo vi <some file name>") can edit it.
I think I'd have changed the group or owner to this user so that they could do some task before I gave them sudo.
That's another way to do it, which will work just fine, too. However, I tend to lean towards sudo for things just like this, mainly because of the auditing purposes. A user can modify/delete their shell history, but (if you only give them sudo rights for ONE COMMAND), can't edit the sudo logs, and you can see what they did, and when.
The same thing can be accomplished either way, though, but the OP did ask about sudo specifically.
I want to set something in sudoers file so that a user "somename" have full privilege to it.
Need the OP to define 'full privilege'.
In any case my point stand; sudo is designed to control what cmds/tools you can run.
It cannot protect files and many cmds have a way to break out into the shell, even if its just ctrl-C or similar.
See the Security Notes here http://linux.die.net/man/8/sudo