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 > Ubuntu > Kubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-29-2010, 05:36 PM
"Alan Dacey Sr."
 
Default Meaning of "This file uses advanced permissions"?

On Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:53:10 pm D. R. Evans wrote:
> I have been experiencing a strange problem with amarok for perhaps the last
> six months: a few files don't play properly (they used to play fine), and
> cause amarok to skip some number of items on the playlist, including the
> file in question.
>
> For a long time I couldn't see anything different about the files that were
> causing this to happen, but I now see that when I look at the properties of
> the files they all say "This file uses advanced permissions". And yet when
> I look at what permissions are actually set, it is the usual: "-rwxr--r--",
> no different (as far as I can see) from other files that don't claim to be
> using advanced file permissions. Simnilarly, lsattr just gives
> "-------------------": nothing special there.
>
> I could (presumably) fix this by explicitly running a recursive chmod over
> the entire hierarchy of music files, but before I try that I would like to
> try to understand what is going on.
>
> Googling wasn't much help, at least using the search terms I tried.
>
> So I think my question is: what does the message "This file uses advanced
> permissions" actually mean?
>
> And probably a second question is: in Kubuntu what is the right way to turn
> off advanced file permissions for a file, other than running an explicit
> command-line chmod (I'm assuming that will work)? The dialogue boxes don't
> seem to offer that capability.
>
> FWIW, I have no idea why these files are different from all the others that
> work fine, nor why amarok seems to have a bit of a fit when it tries to
> play them, now why the behaviour of amarok is different from what it used
> to be, but those are all secondary questions; really I'd just like to
> understand what's special about these files, especially since "ls -al" and
> "lsattr" don't seem to show show anything different about them.
>
> Doc
>
>

In Dolphin, right-click the file, pick Properties. Under the Permissions tab there
is an 'Advanced Permissions' button.
Is there anything different about the problem files than a good file? The advanced
permissions have to do with uder and group IDs, not sure how they really work, I never
needed them.

-
Alan

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 12-29-2010, 11:56 PM
"D. R. Evans"
 
Default Meaning of "This file uses advanced permissions"?

Alan Dacey Sr. said the following at 12/29/2010 11:36 AM :

>
> In Dolphin, right-click the file, pick Properties. Under the Permissions tab there
> is an 'Advanced Permissions' button.
> Is there anything different about the problem files than a good file? The advanced
> permissions have to do with uder and group IDs, not sure how they really work, I never
> needed them.

Well yes... the ordinary files don't say that they use "Advanced
Permissions". The others do.

I've never needed them either :-) Goodness knows why they're suddenly being
used and seem to be important for these few files.

Being a mostly-command-line guy I expected to see obvious differences in
the output from "ls -al" and "lsattr" (I expect that all the GUI stuff is
just essentially some kind of wrapper for these commands; that's often the
case). But there's no obvious difference at all.

Doc

--
Web: http://www.sff.net/people/N7DR

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 12-30-2010, 03:24 AM
Reinhold Rumberger
 
Default Meaning of "This file uses advanced permissions"?

Am Donnerstag 30 Dezember 2010, um 01:56:42 schrieb D. R. Evans:
> Alan Dacey Sr. said the following at 12/29/2010 11:36 AM :
> > In Dolphin, right-click the file, pick Properties. Under the Permissions
> > tab there is an 'Advanced Permissions' button.
> > Is there anything different about the problem files than a good file?
> > The advanced permissions have to do with uder and group IDs, not sure
> > how they really work, I never needed them.
>
> Well yes... the ordinary files don't say that they use "Advanced
> Permissions". The others do.
>
> I've never needed them either :-) Goodness knows why they're suddenly being
> used and seem to be important for these few files.
>
> Being a mostly-command-line guy I expected to see obvious differences in
> the output from "ls -al" and "lsattr" (I expect that all the GUI stuff is
> just essentially some kind of wrapper for these commands; that's often the
> case). But there's no obvious difference at all.

You can try to see whether the effective permissions for your user actually
give you access. You can also try to remove acl support for the file system.
In /etc/fstab, remove the acl option, if there is one.


There's one instance in which I actually needed ACLs. My sisters were using my
desktop as a gaming machine (as opposed to doing their homework and such). So
I went ahead and put them all in a group which I denied access to the games to
without having to touch the pre-defined permissions for other users.
But that's the only time ACLs were ever necessary for me.

--Reinhold

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 12-31-2010, 04:39 PM
"D. R. Evans"
 
Default Meaning of "This file uses advanced permissions"?

Reinhold Rumberger said the following at 12/29/2010 09:24 PM :
>
>>
>> Being a mostly-command-line guy I expected to see obvious differences in
>> the output from "ls -al" and "lsattr" (I expect that all the GUI stuff is
>> just essentially some kind of wrapper for these commands; that's often the
>> case). But there's no obvious difference at all.
>
> You can try to see whether the effective permissions for your user actually
> give you access. You can also try to remove acl support for the file system.
> In /etc/fstab, remove the acl option, if there is one.
>

1. Yes, I have access. I tried copying one of the files with the advanced
permissions and which amarok won't play, and it copied fine.

2. There is no acl anywhere option in /etc/fstab.

I guess I'll try a "chmod -R 644" and see if that changes the behaviour
when amarok tries to play these files.

Doc

--
Web: http://www.sff.net/people/N7DR

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 12-31-2010, 05:12 PM
Reinhold Rumberger
 
Default Meaning of "This file uses advanced permissions"?

Am Freitag 31 Dezember 2010, um 18:39:38 schrieb D. R. Evans:
> Reinhold Rumberger said the following at 12/29/2010 09:24 PM :
> >> Being a mostly-command-line guy I expected to see obvious differences in
> >> the output from "ls -al" and "lsattr" (I expect that all the GUI stuff
> >> is just essentially some kind of wrapper for these commands; that's
> >> often the case). But there's no obvious difference at all.
> >
> > You can try to see whether the effective permissions for your user
> > actually give you access. You can also try to remove acl support for the
> > file system. In /etc/fstab, remove the acl option, if there is one.
>
> 1. Yes, I have access. I tried copying one of the files with the advanced
> permissions and which amarok won't play, and it copied fine.
>
> 2. There is no acl anywhere option in /etc/fstab.

Then the acl option must be stored in the fs superblock. Assuming you're using
some extX filesystem, using "tune2fs -l <device file>" will display a list of
properties. The "Default mount options" one may contain "acl". If so and you
really don't use them, you can use "tune2fs -o ^acl <device file>" to remove
the option. This should take effect on the next mount.
If the acl option isn't there here, either, you can use mount to see whether
the filesystem was explicitly mounted with the option, otherwise this is a
fluke/bug, as ACLs aren't enabled for that filesystem.

> I guess I'll try a "chmod -R 644" and see if that changes the behaviour
> when amarok tries to play these files.

It's certaily worth a try, but AFAIK chmod doesn't know ACLs. (I don't know
whether this has changed in the last couple of years.)
If this is true, it shouldn't have any effect on the ACL.

--Reinhold

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:01 AM.

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