When I type something like:

find . -name *foo* | ls -lah

it returns the same result as a plain ls command, as though it had no input.


ls -lah $( find . -name *foo* )

works well, but only when the find command has results.

Is it possible to pipe to ls ?


You can use -exec with find command.

find . -name '*foo*' -exec ls -lah {} \;
  • Thank you for your solution. There is no pipe but it's an elegant method. If there aren't found any results with 'find' it doesn't display anything (what is in fact good). – Lasall May 21 '11 at 7:22
  • 7
    A slightly better way: find . -name '*foo*' -exec ls -lah {} + – jlliagre May 22 '11 at 3:35
find . -name *foo* | xargs -r ls -lah

That should work.

  • 1
    Thank you for that solution. But how can I deal with whitespaces? – Lasall May 21 '11 at 6:59
  • 2
    @Lasall the preferred way is to use find's -exec + (or -exec \;). xargs is only safe to use with the -0 option, which means that you have to tell whatever command you pipe to xargs to delimit the items with NULL-bytes (\0). With find you can do that with -print0. xargs's -0 and find's -print0 are not standard, but -exec is, so if portability is ever an issue, use find with -exec. – geirha May 26 '11 at 23:29

Try this:

find  . -name *.bak -ls

Use this: (ls can sort, works with filenames with spaces or unusual characters)

find . -name *foo* -print0 | xargs -0 ls -lah

"-print0" means that filenames such as file foo 1 will get output from find followed by null. The "-0" argument to xargs tells it to expect this sort of input, so filenames with spaces get piped to the ls command correctly.

The xargs construction is in some ways better than find etc -exec ls {} \; because all of the filenames get sent to ls at once, so if you want to sort them all by timestamp (using ls), something like this works:

find . -iname *pdf -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ltr

On a NetBSD system, "-printx" is also an option (this seems a useful argument to me, but whatever, we have xargs -0 and it's okay):

find . -name *foo* -printx | xargs ls -lah (not for Ubuntu)

  • This did the trick for me for being able to actually use the sorting functions of ls, for those trying to do this. – Harry Mustoe-Playfair Oct 16 '18 at 16:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.