Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #237574 > unrolled thread

Upgrade problems?

Started byFrank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
First post2021-07-21 15:40 +0200
Last post2021-07-21 19:20 +0200
Articles 11 — 6 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Upgrade problems? Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2021-07-21 15:40 +0200
    Re: Upgrade problems? Kushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net> - 2021-07-21 17:00 +0200
      Re: Upgrade problems? Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2021-07-21 18:20 +0200
        Re: Upgrade problems? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-07-21 18:30 +0200
          Re: Upgrade problems? Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2021-07-21 20:40 +0200
        Re: Upgrade problems? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-07-21 18:40 +0200
          Re: Upgrade problems? Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 08:30 +0200
            Re: Upgrade problems? Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 09:00 +0200
        Re: Upgrade problems? Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 18:50 +0200
          Re: Upgrade problems? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-07-21 19:00 +0200
            Re: Upgrade problems? Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 19:20 +0200

#237574 — Upgrade problems?

FromFrank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
Date2021-07-21 15:40 +0200
SubjectUpgrade problems?
Message-ID<CDkC5-63I-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye.


Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → 
/run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / 
→ /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path 
transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe 
path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var/lib. Detected 
unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of 
/var/lib/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during 
canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run 
during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition 
/ → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path 
transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected 
unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. 
Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of 
/run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during 
canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → 
/run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path 
transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. 
Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of 
/run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during 
canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif.


So far, doesn't seem to affect the operation of the computer.


Thanks

-- 
Frank McCormick

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#237575

FromKushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net>
Date2021-07-21 17:00 +0200
Message-ID<CDlRw-6JH-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237574
On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye.
>
>
> Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / →
> /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition
> / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path 
> transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe
> path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var/lib. Detected 
> unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of
> /var/lib/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during 
> canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run
> during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path
> transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected
> unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of
> /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during
> canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / →
> /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path
> transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected
> unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of
> /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during
> canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path
> transition / → /run during canonicalization of
> /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during 
> canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif.
>
>

Your / directory is not owned by root.  (`ls -ld /` or `stat /` to
check)

> So far, doesn't seem to affect the operation of the computer.
>
>
> Thanks

-- 
regards,
kushal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237582

FromFrank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
Date2021-07-21 18:20 +0200
Message-ID<CDn6V-7DY-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237575
On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye.
>>
>>
>> Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / →
>> /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition
>> / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path
>> transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe
>>
/snip/

frank@fedora ~$ stat /
   File: /
   Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400

Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?

Will chown work ?


Thanks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237583

FromGreg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>
Date2021-07-21 18:30 +0200
Message-ID<CDngB-7GZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237582
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:04:13PM -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>   File: /
>   Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400
> 
> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
> 
> Will chown work ?

Your hostname is "fedora"?  Um.  Skipping that for now....

Yes, chown would work, although chgrp would be the more "natural" pick.

Either   chown 0:0 /   or   chgrp 0 /

While you're poking around in there, the permissions are also different
from what one would normally expect on Debian.  chmod 755 /

Then again, if this isn't actually a Debian host, the 555 permissions
on the root directory might be normal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237596

FromFrank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
Date2021-07-21 20:40 +0200
Message-ID<CDpip-ul-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237583

On 7/21/21 12:24 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:04:13PM -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
>> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>>    File: /
>>    Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
>> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
>> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
>> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
>> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
>> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
>> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
>> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400
>>
>> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
>>
>> Will chown work ?
> 
> Your hostname is "fedora"?  Um.  Skipping that for now....
> 
> Yes, chown would work, although chgrp would be the more "natural" pick.
> 
> Either   chown 0:0 /   or   chgrp 0 /
> 
> While you're poking around in there, the permissions are also different
> from what one would normally expect on Debian.  chmod 755 /
> 
> Then again, if this isn't actually a Debian host, the 555 permissions
> on the root directory might be normal.
> 


    Good grief!

This comment stirred my memory and I realized I had rebooted into Fedora 
34 AFTER I had updated Debian Bullseye.

 >Your hostname is "fedora"?  Um.  Skipping that for now.... >

Nevertheless, I am still pullzed by those errors.


  Back in Debian is redid the debug suggestions.

frank@franklin:~$ stat /

File: /
Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096
directory
Device: 801h/2049d      Inode: 2           Links:18
Access: (0755/drwxr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
Access: 2021-07-21 10:28:15.256580076 -0400 Modify: 2021-07-21 
10:14:11.300131364 -0400 Change: 2021-07-21 10:20:43.718277098 -0400
Birth: 2020-07-12 12:23:46.000000000 -0400

(sorry about the wrapping)

frank@franklin:~$ ls -ld /

drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Jul 21 10:14 /

So "/" is owned by root with proper permissions!

What now ??

Sorry folks.


Frank

-- 
Frank McCormick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237585

FromTixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk>
Date2021-07-21 18:40 +0200
Message-ID<CDnqh-7K3-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237582
On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > > Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / →
> > > /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition
> > > / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path
> > > transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe
> > > 
> /snip/
> 
> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>    File: /
>    Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400
> 
> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
> 
> Will chown work ?

Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your
system?

Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search
throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237608

FromCindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
Date2021-07-22 08:30 +0200
Message-ID<CDAnv-7l0-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237585
On 7/21/21, Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
>> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote:
>>
>> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>>    File: /
>>    Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
>> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
>> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
>> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
>> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
>> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
>> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
>> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400
>>
>> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
>>
>> Will chown work ?
>
> Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your
> system?
>
> Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search
> throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html


My apologies if my thread trimming glitched any. That thing about "/",
were your packages e.g. deb packages or did you untar a package or a
few?

It's about a bug I tried to submit to Security a couple years ago. I
got shut down, kind of a cyber hand thrown up in my face. STILL "not
amused".

It was about my own "/" multiple times over becoming owned by
something else every time I untarred one particular package. The
package would reach up two or three or so parent directories to take
over the "/" directory.

Cindy..... :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237609

FromCindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
Date2021-07-22 09:00 +0200
Message-ID<CDAQx-7u4-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237608
Adding this up here as a quick read: If this was installation via
debs, I'm out of the conversation. If it was about untarring [zipped
files] and you can repeatedly reproduce the issue now that you have
seen this, PLEASE don't share the package name(s) publicly. They could
be... dissected and then reconstructed for less than moral purposes.

Cindy :)

On 7/22/21, Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/21, Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote:
>>>
>>> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>>>    File: /
>>>    Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
>>> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
>>> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
>>> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
>>> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
>>> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
>>> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
>>> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400
>>>
>>> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
>>>
>>> Will chown work ?
>>
>> Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your
>> system?
>>
>> Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search
>> throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html
>
>
> My apologies if my thread trimming glitched any. That thing about "/",
> were your packages e.g. deb packages or did you untar a package or a
> few?
>
> It's about a bug I tried to submit to Security a couple years ago. I
> got shut down, kind of a cyber hand thrown up in my face. STILL "not
> amused".
>
> It was about my own "/" multiple times over becoming owned by
> something else every time I untarred one particular package. The
> package would reach up two or three or so parent directories to take
> over the "/" directory.
>
> Cindy..... :)
> --
> Cindy-Sue Causey
> Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
>
> * runs with birdseed *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237586

FromKenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com>
Date2021-07-21 18:50 +0200
Message-ID<CDnzX-7Np-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237582

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 12:12 PM Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca>
wrote:

> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick <
> debianlist@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >> Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye.
> >>
> >>
> >> Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / →
> >> /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition
> >> / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path
> >> transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe
> >>
> /snip/
>
> frank@fedora ~$ stat /
>    File: /
>    Size: 4096            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096 directory
> Device: 806h/2054d      Inode: 2           Links: 18
> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0
> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400
> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400
> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400
> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.000000000 -0400


> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ?
>

Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can
Update.

Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works.

Will chown work ?
>

Actually, chmod might work better.  My system has 755, owned by Root.
Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute.


Thanks
>

Good luck.

Kenneth Parker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237587

FromGreg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>
Date2021-07-21 19:00 +0200
Message-ID<CDnJD-7QC-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237586
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:39:49PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:

> > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)

> Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can
> Update.
> 
> Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works.

Yes.

> Will chown work ?
> >
> 
> Actually, chmod might work better.  My system has 755, owned by Root.
> Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute.

None of that explains why systemd says the thing is considered "unsafe".
It's "unsafe" because it's owned by group "frank".

Thus, changing the GID back to 0 is the main issue (for suppressing the
warning messages).  Fixing the perms from 555 to 755 is just for a bit
of extra consistency.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237589

FromKenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com>
Date2021-07-21 19:20 +0200
Message-ID<CDo2Z-8eR-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#237587

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 12:57 PM Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:39:49PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
>
> > > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: ( 1000/ frank)
>
> > Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can
> > Update.
> >
> > Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Will chown work ?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, chmod might work better.  My system has 755, owned by Root.
> > Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute.
>
> None of that explains why systemd says the thing is considered "unsafe".
> It's "unsafe" because it's owned by group "frank".
>

How did I miss that?

The only reason I can think of, for a different Group would be for
something like /var/log, so someone other than Root can read the Logs.

Thus, changing the GID back to 0 is the main issue (for suppressing the
> warning messages).  Fixing the perms from 555 to 755 is just for a bit
> of extra consistency.
>

That, and other layers of Security, such as selinux, where Root isn't
always "god".

Thanks for the clarification.

Kenneth Parker


>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web