FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-13-2008, 10:53 PM
"Gianluca Cecchi"
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Hello all.

historical preface:-)
I have a friend of mine pc where, due to virus/dialers, etc I removed windows and installed fedora.
He only has a modem for internet connection, so I initially installed f7 test3 to have him see the flavour and let me know about it.

All was ok for his needs (internet, text editing, cd ripping, digikam, etc) and so the pc remained at that stage.

Only problem he reported lately was that when inserting an usb key, with normal user profile the access was read only, while logged as root had also write access.


So some time ago I updated the system directly via dvd to f8 (actually f8 rc3: MAGIC ALL WENT SMOOTHLY!!! COMPLIMENTS!) and then manually installed updated packages (till mid january).
But this problem still remains...

Any opinion about the cause to investigate: hal / old config file or else?
I compared the process with the same key with mine (also f8) and his pc.
Both report in log file the same message such as (note the last line):


Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: usb 2-2: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 3
Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: usb 2-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: Initializing USB Mass Storage driver...

Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: scsi8 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices
Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage
Jan 26 17:53:09 tekkaman kernel: USB Mass Storage support registered.

Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: scsi 8:0:0:0: Direct-Access**** Kingston DataTraveler 2.0 1.00 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] 3987456 512-byte hardware sectors (2042 MB)
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off

Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] 3987456 512-byte hardware sectors (2042 MB)
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off

Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel:* sdb: sdb1
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk
Jan 26 17:53:14 tekkaman kernel: sd 8:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2 type 0

Jan 26 17:53:15 tekkaman gnome-keyring-daemon[2458]: adding removable location: volume_uuid_E0FD_1813 at /media/KINGSTON
Jan 26 17:53:15 tekkaman gnome-keyring-daemon[7222]: adding removable location: volume_uuid_E0FD_1813 at /media/KINGSTON

Jan 26 17:53:15 tekkaman hald: mounted /dev/sdb1 on behalf of uid 500


but actually on his pc the directory /media/KINGSTON is writable only by root
Doing an iterated "ls -l" on my pc I see this sequence while inserting the usb key:


[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD

[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD
drwx------ 2 root root 4096 2008-02-13 23:47 KINGSTON


[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 36
drwxr-xr-x 2 root*** root* 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD
drwxr-xr-x 4 gcecchi root 16384 1970-01-01 01:00 KINGSTON

So it seems a two (or more) step process....

On his pc the dir remains actually
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 16384 1970-01-01 01:00 KINGSTON

even if connected as a normal user to gnome session.
Thanks for your opinions and suggestions.
Gianluca


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-14-2008, 02:29 PM
Todd Denniston
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Gianluca Cecchi wrote, On 02/13/2008 06:53 PM:

Hello all.


<SNIP>

Only problem he reported lately was that when inserting an usb key, with
normal user profile the access was read only, while logged as root had also
write access.


<SNIP> system was updated to F8 DVD status, and yum updated in mid January.

Question, has it been updated to near the latest F8 updates by yum? It is
always _POSSIBLE_ that a yum update could fix things. Of course if you
have a much faster internet connection, you could be nice and take a yum repo
copy on a big usb device.


<SNIP> messages indicating no reason for the device to be read only.

Jan 26 17:53:15 tekkaman hald: mounted /dev/sdb1 on behalf of uid 500
were there any other message after this in the log, in the next second or two,
concerning /dev/sdb1 or /media/KINGSTON?




but actually on his pc the directory /media/KINGSTON is writable only by
root
Doing an iterated "ls -l" on my pc I see this sequence while inserting the
usb key:

[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD

[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD
drwx------ 2 root root 4096 2008-02-13 23:47 KINGSTON

[root@tekkaman valeria]# ll /media
total 36
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2007-12-30 01:23 IPOD
drwxr-xr-x 4 gcecchi root 16384 1970-01-01 01:00 KINGSTON

So it seems a two (or more) step process....
On his pc the dir remains actually
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 16384 1970-01-01 01:00 KINGSTON

even if connected as a normal user to gnome session.
Thanks for your opinions and suggestions.
Gianluca




Assuming you mean that gcecchi logged into the console/gdm and no other user
(including root) was logged in at the time.

Also assuming gcecchi is the username your friend logs in with.
[seeing the data above coming from a root login does not bode well for this
assumption, thanks for including that info.]
When collecting future data I suggest, login as the user and `su -` as needed
to execute commands as root only as required, such as to read /var/log/messages.

...
some of the above information seems strange, like
drwxr-xr-x 4 gcecchi root
Is gcecchi a member of the root group, and if so why?
the command `groups` will tell you all the groups you are a member of.

do you have entries in /etc/fstab for either /media/KINGSTON or /dev/sdb?? if
so then I suggest, comment them out and retry.


After understanding the above, you are probably looking at a udev/hald rules
question.



--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Tom Holroyd
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

After understanding the above, you are probably looking at a udev/hald rules
question.

please elaborate

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-14-2008, 03:03 PM
Todd Denniston
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Tom Holroyd wrote, On 02/14/2008 10:43 AM:
After understanding the above, you are probably looking at a udev/hald rules
question.


please elaborate



If /etc/fstab is not effecting the mount,
and
If the only user logged into the system is the user trying to read/write the
USB device,

and
If the /etc/group file is not munged up for the user, i.e., the user is in
either a group named the same as the user or another normal (not root) group,

and
If the physical write protect tab is not set to write protect (the messages
indicated it was not),


Then:
the normal F8 udev/hald rules should mount the [v]fat file system from the
device as either

drwxr-xr-x # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON
or
drwx------ # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON

So the only other thing left to look at AFAIK is the udev/hald rules.

I suppose there is also an interaction with one of the gnome/kde hald watching
things to take into account, but those should only cause the mount to occur...
not set permissions AFAIK.


elaborate enough?
--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-14-2008, 06:31 PM
Tom Holroyd
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:03 -0500, Todd Denniston wrote:
> the normal F8 udev/hald rules should mount the [v]fat file system from the
> device as either
> drwxr-xr-x # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON
> or
> drwx------ # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON
>
> So the only other thing left to look at AFAIK is the udev/hald rules.

> elaborate enough?

Not really. I had already gotten that far. What I want to know is, how
does one look at/change the udev/hald rules?

Dr. Tom
--
O heaven above me! You pure, you lofty heaven! This is now your purity
to me, that there is no eternal reason-spider and reason-cobweb: That
you are to me a dancing-floor for divine chances, that you are to me a
table of the Gods, for divine dice and dice-players! Thus spoke
Zarathustra.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-14-2008, 09:01 PM
Todd Denniston
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Tom Holroyd wrote, On 02/14/2008 02:31 PM:

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:03 -0500, Todd Denniston wrote:
the normal F8 udev/hald rules should mount the [v]fat file system from the
device as either

drwxr-xr-x # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON
or
drwx------ # user usergroup dirsize 1970-01-01 time /media/KINGSTON

So the only other thing left to look at AFAIK is the udev/hald rules.



elaborate enough?


Not really. I had already gotten that far. What I want to know is, how
does one look at/change the udev/hald rules?



Note: I have yet to actually edit any of these, so it is possible the
following information should come with the disclaimer "WARNING: here be
dragons".


ls /etc/udev/rules.d
ls /etc/hal

granted I do need to eventually figure out how to edit them, as I want
removable devices (USB sticks, CD/DVDs, floppies) to be mounted noexec.
[had it figured out on FC4 with hal, just have not figured it out with the
udev setup yet]



Dr. Tom
--
O heaven above me! You pure, you lofty heaven! This is now your purity
to me, that there is no eternal reason-spider and reason-cobweb: That
you are to me a dancing-floor for divine chances, that you are to me a
table of the Gods, for divine dice and dice-players! Thus spoke
Zarathustra.



Cool never read Zarathustra's quote before.

--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-15-2008, 09:56 AM
"Gianluca Cecchi"
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

thanks guys for your efforts.
Some information:
- update on his system was done via rpm (not so easy) without using force or other drastic parameters
- I've considered the alternate disk repository, but it seems complicated by using also livna packages... I'll investigate more in this sense
- after the log provided there were no other errors or messages*on both PCs
- for the*output provided I was connected as gcecchi in gnome on my PC and in a terminal I did a "su -"
- on both pcs' logs*the uid is 500 because it is the first one created different from root (gcecchi in my case, luca in his case)
- gcecchi is not a member of root group
- no entry at all in fstab for sdb or /media fs on both pc
*
I'm going to compare
ls /etc/udev/rules.d
ls /etc/hal
between the two stations and report.
*
In the mean time, thanks for your time.
Gianluca
*
*
*
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-15-2008, 01:24 PM
Todd Denniston
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Gianluca Cecchi wrote, On 02/15/2008 05:56 AM:

thanks guys for your efforts.
Some information:
- update on his system was done via rpm (not so easy) without using force or
other drastic parameters
- I've considered the alternate disk repository, but it seems complicated by
using also livna packages... I'll investigate more in this sense


For the future
As long as one of the packages that you want to update from the fedora-updates
repo mirror (that you have on the disk) does not cause a livna one to need to
be updated, you can use --exclude and --disablerepo

i.e.,
yum --disablerepo=livna --exclude=pkgFromLivna
--exclude=anotherPkgFromLivna
--exclude=aFedoraUpdatePkgRequireingLivnaUpdate update

and then decide later on the need to to update specific packages you excluded.


- after the log provided there were no other errors or messages on both PCs
- for the output provided I was connected as gcecchi in gnome on my PC and
in a terminal I did a "su -"
- on both pcs' logs the uid is 500 because it is the first one created
different from root (gcecchi in my case, luca in his case)
- gcecchi is not a member of root group
- no entry at all in fstab for sdb or /media fs on both pc

I'm going to compare
ls /etc/udev/rules.d
ls /etc/hal
between the two stations and report.


Sounds like a good plan.



In the mean time, thanks for your time.
Gianluca




As I recall how you started this thread,
you installed a F8 alpha/beta and upgraded to F8, which _should_ at worst be
equivalent from upgrading from F7 to F8. And I do not see[1] any place that I
would expect you to be getting problems from[2]. I think you may have two
hopes 1) you find a delta in /etc/[udev|hal] 2) one of the folks working on
LiveUpgrade[3] catches wind of this message and makes a few comments.


If it happens you find a delta in /etc/[udev|hal] please post, as it could help.


[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq#head-56b13936246769f517ac488a0098d193c7fc3600
[2] Unless the machine is running in x86_64 mode, and I don't know how to
check if it is.

[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade

--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 02-15-2008, 01:30 PM
Todd Denniston
 
Default problem with permissions of usb key

Todd Denniston wrote, On 02/15/2008 09:24 AM:

Gianluca Cecchi wrote, On 02/15/2008 05:56 AM:

thanks guys for your efforts.
Some information:
- update on his system was done via rpm (not so easy) without using
force or

other drastic parameters
- I've considered the alternate disk repository, but it seems
complicated by

using also livna packages... I'll investigate more in this sense


For the future
As long as one of the packages that you want to update from the
fedora-updates repo mirror (that you have on the disk) does not cause a
livna one to need to be updated, you can use --exclude and --disablerepo

i.e.,
yum --disablerepo=livna --exclude=pkgFromLivna
--exclude=anotherPkgFromLivna
--exclude=aFedoraUpdatePkgRequireingLivnaUpdate update

and then decide later on the need to to update specific packages you
excluded.


- after the log provided there were no other errors or messages on
both PCs
- for the output provided I was connected as gcecchi in gnome on my PC
and

in a terminal I did a "su -"
- on both pcs' logs the uid is 500 because it is the first one created
different from root (gcecchi in my case, luca in his case)
- gcecchi is not a member of root group
- no entry at all in fstab for sdb or /media fs on both pc

I'm going to compare
ls /etc/udev/rules.d
ls /etc/hal
between the two stations and report.


Sounds like a good plan.



In the mean time, thanks for your time.
Gianluca




As I recall how you started this thread,
you installed a F8 alpha/beta and upgraded to F8, which _should_ at
worst be equivalent from upgrading from F7 to F8. And I do not see[1]
any place that I would expect you to be getting problems from[2]. I
think you may have two hopes 1) you find a delta in /etc/[udev|hal] 2)
one of the folks working on LiveUpgrade[3] catches wind of this message
and makes a few comments.


If it happens you find a delta in /etc/[udev|hal] please post, as it
could help.



[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq#head-56b13936246769f517ac488a0098d193c7fc3600

[2] Unless the machine is running in x86_64 mode, and I don't know how
to check if it is.

[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade




Arg... just had one of those OUCH thoughts.
you should probably check /etc/yum.repos.d/* files and see if development (for
both fedora and livna) is still enabled or if only fedora and fedora-updates
are enabled.

i.e.,
grep -e enabled -e "^[" /etc/yum.repos.d/*

--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org