When I perform a ls on most directories the file size is 4096 bytes but in a few cases I have seen the directory size change. an example is the app vocal it placed a cache file that was bigger than 4096.

What is occurring ? I can see no reason for the size of a directory to change and if there is a reason what is it

Normal listing
ls -l
total 40
drwxr-xr-x 6 name name 4096 Nov 4 09:14 Desktop
drwxr-xr-x 18 name name 4096 Nov 4 04:00 Documents
drwxr-xr-x 11 name name 4096 Nov 4 11:57 Downloads
drwxr-xr-x 3 name name 4096 Jun 23 03:14 Music
drwxr-xr-x 4 name name 4096 Oct 14 02:17 Pictures
drwxr-xr-x 2 name name 4096 Aug 12 18:11 Public

It might help if you posted the output for the non-conforming item.

However, this thread from superuser might be of some use.

I guess you'd have to "dumpster dive" into the source-code of a particular filesystem to see exactly how it manages directories – which are, basically, "files containing lists of files." But I can easily imagine that, if a particular directory contained many files, its size would grow and it might or might not then decrease. (As in: "why bother?")

The basic generalization is that everything is a file even directories and as posted directories are files that are lists of other files. Given that in most filesystems the smallest something can be is one block which in most cases is 4096 now days. The directory file contains the filenames and basically their inodes. As more files are added the directory file will increase but as also posted the size will not decrease when files are deleted.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/1073...inux-is-a-file

Yeah, a directory is a list of file names. If there are a lot of file names in that directory, then that would be an obvious reason for the different size.

This issue has nothing to do with files in the directory. I had this issue on mxlinux and a directory with a larger size than 4096 had only one small file, making think it is a security issue. I asked the Mxlinux forum to duplicate the issue with files in the directory and no one provided an example.

I stole this from another site, A directory is just a special file which contains an array of filenames and inode numbers. When the directory was created, the file system allocated 1 inode to the directory with a "filename" (dir name in fact). The inode points to a single data block (minimum overhead), which is 4096 bytes.

To see the size of the ocupied content of a directory use the command du (Disk utilization)

As michaelk said
PS That's my exclamation mark there, just for emphasis.
It's actually quite a common qn for new users ...

Arespi. The Inode has nothing to the direcotry size which is set. But If you think it is correct it should be possible to duplicate this situation, Can you offer a method to duplicate a change in a directory size?

just put some files into that dir and remove them.

I already stated this change of directory file size has noting to do with files in the directory. But if you think it does perfrom the task and state the directory name and the exact number of files you placed in it to change the directory size.

I'm sorry, I have to say it is wrong. The directory itself is "something" which contains files (and directories and other items). The more you put in, the bigger it gets. That is that simple.
michaelk made it in the previous post (#12). If you don't understand: the code creates at about 150 empty files in a directory ~/test. Initially its size was "4096", at the end it was "12288". Finally, all the files were removed and the directory size did not change any further. You can still put in 50 files, 127, 151, 152 or even 10,000 files, remove [some] files and see how it works. (I think you need to do it yourself)

Look. If you're convinced that there's malware hiding in the directory (which is clearly what you've been insinuating for this entire thread), then just have the courage to say that.

What's clear to me is that you have no idea what a directory is. And that you've completely ignored the many very good explanations that have already been handed to you.

The fact that you would "state" something this wrong, this late into the thread, is indisputable proof.

If those suggestions where valid dugan you would not have to post to say nothing.

Anyone who knows the answer would be able to give an example of how a directory file can change from 4096 to a larger value. So yes I believe this is hidden malware which no one noticed.