[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev-172

[Tom Gundersen]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 18:41, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> [2011-07-11 16:02:15 +0200] Thomas Bächler:
>>>> Permissions are incorrect here, should be 0666, otherwise a user cannot
>>>> access it and trigger the module autoloading.
>>>
>>> Sorry I was AFK for some time.
>>>
>>> You are correct: it was a permission issue on /dev/fuse that I had.
>>
>> This isn't a permission error you had; it is likely a permission error
>> every single person will have, so it needs to get addressed somehow.
>
> The permissions are wrong here as well.
>
> Below are the results of using 'git bisect' and installing the
> resulting packages in a VM, rebooting, and seeing if /dev/fuse has 600
> or 666 permissions:
>
> (Reverting this commit [1] in the udev 172-1 package fixes the wrong
> permissions on /dev/fuse. I don't understand the changes in that
> commit myself, so I'll leave further troubleshooting to Tom and the
> other experts. :p)
>
> c112873b5bc9ebbae39c32f502bc6211f33546cc is the first bad commit
> commit c112873b5bc9ebbae39c32f502bc6211f33546cc
> Author: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers at vrfy.org>
> Date:   Mon May 30 02:12:02 2011 +0200
>
>    rules: static_node - use 0660 if group is given to get the cigar
>
>    >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 15:33, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
>    >
>    > Close, but no cigar. Looks like the static nodes are not assigned
>    > permissions 0660 even if a gid is set (the nodes have perms 0600).
>    >
>    > Cheers,
>    >
>    > Tom
>
> :040000 040000 4bc113a62daff05dadc05d3812d66a702d7e1849
> d893668f602bb9079b721a26e880333b7e7932f8 M      udev
>
> [1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=c112873
>

Thanks for debugging (and sorry for being late in replying). This does
look like an upstream bug introduced when fixing the other upstream
bug we found with the last release :-)

I'll look into it in more detail and pass it on. Expect a 172-2 in
testing once this has been sorted out.

Cheers,

Tom