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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174896 > unrolled thread

Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

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

Contents

  Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-19 20:00 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-19 21:40 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 13:10 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 13:20 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 13:40 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 13:40 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 14:20 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 15:00 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 15:20 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 17:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-11-20 18:30 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 19:00 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 15:20 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 15:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 17:20 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-20 15:40 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 18:50 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 19:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 20:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 20:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 21:10 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 15:40 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 00:10 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 03:00 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 14:40 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 14:50 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 18:50 +0100
    MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site  specific] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 21:30 +0100
      Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 22:00 +0100
        Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:50 +0100
          Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2016-11-21 14:30 +0100
            Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-21 14:40 +0100
              Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100
                Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 16:40 +0100
                  Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 17:30 +0100
                    Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 17:50 +0100
                Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 18:30 +0100
                  [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:00 +0100
                    Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:00 +0100
                      Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 19:00 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-21 14:20 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-21 15:10 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 17:40 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 18:20 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 18:40 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-21 19:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 20:40 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 21:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:10 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-22 16:20 +0100
                        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:40 +0100
                          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 17:00 +0100
                          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-22 17:00 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#174896 — Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ 
*ONE* purpose.
It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine.
There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between 
them.

When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered 
read/write access.
[when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]


HOW?
{any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#174902

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE*
> purpose.
> It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine.
> There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between
> them.
> 
> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered
> read/write access.
> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
> 
> 
> HOW?
> {any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}

Use the "umask" option when mounting the file system. Umask is
supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions.

That would be

  mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000

(of course just 0 would suffice. Old rituals and that ;-)

For more options, you separate them with comma, like so

  mount /dev/foo mnt -ouid=richard,gid=richard,umask=003

supposing you want the files to belong to user (uid) "richard" and
group (gid) "richard" and want to take away write perm from others.

The details are in the "mount" man page, under "FILESYSTEM SPECIFIC
MOUNT OPTIONS", "Mount options for fat".

You can set the options in the fstab, if you make an entry there
(fourth field, see man fstab).

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgwtwwACgkQBcgs9XrR2kapJQCdGT1YIv/58eaI49xxqp4SuDV9
WyAAoIEduiIOmQk7TBnAUOt+9kbZg1+/
=wo6m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#174910

On 11/19/2016 2:33 PM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for _EXACTLY_ *ONE*
>> purpose.
>> It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine.
>> There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between
>> them.
>>
>> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered
>> read/write access.
>> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
>>
>>
>> HOW?
>> {any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
>
> Use the "umask" option when mounting the file system. Umask is
> supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions.
>
> That would be
>
>    mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000
>
> (of course just 0 would suffice. Old rituals and that ;-)
>
> For more options, you separate them with comma, like so
>
>    mount /dev/foo mnt -ouid=richard,gid=richard,umask=003
>
> supposing you want the files to belong to user (uid) "richard" and
> group (gid) "richard" and want to take away write perm from others.
>
> The details are in the "mount" man page, under "FILESYSTEM SPECIFIC
> MOUNT OPTIONS", "Mount options for fat".
>
> You can set the options in the fstab, if you make an entry there
> (fourth field, see man fstab).
>
> regards
> - -- t

Those don't address my problem definition.
Having a USB flash drive with a fat16/fat32 file system in hand, 
on inserting drive I wish full read/write access.
After all, a FAT filesystem has no concept of ownership.
What's wrong?

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

#174911

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

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
> Those don't address my problem definition.

Yes, they do. Tomas' answer was exactly the correct one to your problem.

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#174912

On 11/20/2016 6:11 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
>> Those don't address my problem definition.
>
> Yes, they do. Tomas' answer was exactly the correct one to your problem.
>

Not as I read them.
They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.
Be it specified by LABEL, UUID, or designation in the /dev/sdX 
hierarchy.

I wish _generic_ handling.
In this use case I _generic_ means "any USB flash device with FAT 
file system".
E.G. when I pick up a flash drive that has information written by 
my Windows machine I have *NO* a priori knowledge of "LABEL, 
UUID, or designation in the /dev/sdX hierarchy."

Something missing somewhere :<  PEBSAK ?

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

#174913

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

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
> Not as I read them.

Then you did not read correctly.

> They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.

Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount
option. This it, no more no less.

To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW or
hire a consultant. But you have your answer.

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

#174914

On 11/20/2016 6:33 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
>> Not as I read them.
>
> Then you did not read correctly.

https://manned.org/fstab.5 states
"
   The first field (fs_spec).
       This field describes the block special device or remote 
filesystem
       to be mounted.
       ...
       LABEL=<label> or UUID=<uuid> may be given instead of a device
       name.  This is the recommended method, as device names are 
often a
       coincidence of hardware detection order, and can change 
when other
       disks are added or removed.  For example, `LABEL=Boot' or
       UUID=3e6be9de-8139-11d1-9106-a43f08d823a6'.  (Use a 
filesystem-
       specific tool like e2label(8), xfs_admin(8), or 
fatlabel(8) to set
       LABELs on filesystems).

       It's also possible to use PARTUUID= and PARTLABEL=. These
       partitions identifiers are supported for example for GUID
       Partition Table (GPT).
"

>
>> They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.
>
> Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount
> option. This it, no more no less.

On 11/19/2016 2:33 PM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> Use the "umask" option when mounting the file system. Umask is
> supposed to be the bits *not* to set in the file permissions.
>
> That would be
>
> mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000
>

That works for an explicit value of "foo".

Maybe the problem is D.E. specific? I'm using MATE and thus Caja 
as file-manager.
On top menu-bar Places will list identifiers for mountable devices.
Clicking the "identifier" will "mount" the identified device.
It will use information available from /etc/fstab and/or 
pmount.allow .
Neither appears to have an entry equivalent to "any FAT 
filesystem on plugable device".



>
> To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW or
> hire a consultant. But you have your answer.
>

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

#174917

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100
Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
> > Not as I read them.  
> 
> Then you did not read correctly.
> 
> > They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.  
> 
> Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount
> option. This it, no more no less.
> 
> To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW or
> hire a consultant. But you have your answer.

Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. 

There *is* a generic answer, which requires no fstab entry, but I have
to admit that I haven't a clue what it is.

I'm running sid with systemd, with absolutely nothing in /etc/fstab
which refers to USB sticks, but nonetheless any USB stick inserted is
recognised and automounted under /media/joe (maybe immediately and maybe
on access, I'm not sure, but it shows instantly in file managers) with
everything in a FAT partition having ownership of joe:me and
permissions of 644. Ext partitions have their own permissions, as
expected.

This all Just Works, and I have no idea what configuration it depends
on. "I didn't build this," sid basically builds and rebuilds itself, so
I tend to keep my fingers out of the works. I do know that USB sticks
were a real pain with usbmount, which *sometimes* mounted the entire
device instead of the partitions, and at some point, things just
started working better.

There is nothing in /etc/polkit-1, /etc/udev or /etc/udisks2 referring
to USB sticks, which are the most likely suspects as far as I can see.
Presumably the culprit is systemd, as usual, so possibly someone more
knowledgable about this beast can finish my part-answer.

-- 
Joe

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

#174918

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 01:58:04PM +0000, Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100
> Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> 
> > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
> > > Not as I read them.  
> > 
> > Then you did not read correctly.
> > 
> > > They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.  
> > 
> > Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount
> > option. This it, no more no less.
> > 
> > To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW or
> > hire a consultant. But you have your answer.
> 
> Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. 
> 
> There *is* a generic answer, which requires no fstab entry, but I have
> to admit that I haven't a clue what it is.

This is your desktop environment doing it for you (noticed how it
mounts under /media/joe? Guess what happens if you had set up
another user and "were logged in as" this other user? /media/joe
or rather /media/otheruser? That's it).

Of course the DE doesn't do the mount directly, but relies on
pmount or something similar.

Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of
desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky,
therefore I prefer to run without.

I mount my media explicitly.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgxr9cACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYE9QCdHcMYikUu3syn6IzIVxWsyRuU
sIMAn3ymPHEqBq/nYB+I5U3ZPTMBzkts
=JGkN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#174928

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 01:58:04PM +0000, Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100
> > Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :  
> > > > Not as I read them.    
> > > 
> > > Then you did not read correctly.
> > >   
> > > > They give methods of handling an explicitly specified
> > > > device.    
> > > 
> > > Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask
> > > mount option. This it, no more no less.
> > > 
> > > To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW
> > > or hire a consultant. But you have your answer.  
> > 
> > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. 
> > 
> > There *is* a generic answer, which requires no fstab entry, but I
> > have to admit that I haven't a clue what it is.  
> 
> This is your desktop environment doing it for you (noticed how it
> mounts under /media/joe? Guess what happens if you had set up
> another user and "were logged in as" this other user? /media/joe
> or rather /media/otheruser? That's it).

Well done. I assumed it was a lower level than that, as usbmount wasn't
DE-specific.

I'm running Xfce, hence the Thunar file manager, which I don't use, and
apparently thunar-volman which does automounting. It doesn't show up in
an apt-cache search for automount.

> 
> Of course the DE doesn't do the mount directly, but relies on
> pmount or something similar.

I don't have pmount installed.
> 
> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of
> desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky,
> therefore I prefer to run without.
> 
> I mount my media explicitly.
> 

So do I. If I don't want a USB stick mounted, I don't plug it in. If I
do plug it in, apart from formatting, why would I not want it mounted?
I don't want any applications or media to autorun, but I do want the
filesystems mounted.

-- 
Joe

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

#174929

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

On 2016-11-20 at 11:46, Joe wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

>> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of
>> desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky,
>> therefore I prefer to run without.
>> 
>> I mount my media explicitly.
> 
> So do I. If I don't want a USB stick mounted, I don't plug it in.

That's not explicit; it's invoking the implicit mount which your system
is configured to execute upon the device being connected.

Unless you are explicitly issuing a command which says "mount this
device to this path", you are not _explicitly_ mounting the media; it
either is not being mounted at all, or is being mounted automatically.
Connecting a device does not equal issuing a command to mount it.

> If I do plug it in, apart from formatting, why would I not want it
> mounted?

Perhaps because you know the drive is damaged, such that the mount
attempt will fail (and might hang, or even spawn zombie processes), and
you don't want the system attempting to access it unnecessarily.

Perhaps because there are multiple filesystems on the device, and you
only want to mount one of them. (Perhaps you even want to refrain from
updating access timestamps which get updated on mount or unmount; I
believe there are filesystems which include that behavior.)

Perhaps because you want to _choose_ where to mount it to, according to
criteria specific to the case at hand, rather than relying on whatever
global defaults are configured.

Perhaps because you want to dump an unmodified copy of the filesystem to
a file on local disk, without risking the filesystem being modified
during the mount / unmount process.

I imagine there may be other possibilities...

> I don't want any applications or media to autorun, but I do want the
> filesystems mounted.

That's an entirely reasonable usage pattern, but it is not explicit
mounting, and there are legitimate reasons why someone might want
different behavior.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#174932

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 12:19:49PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2016-11-20 at 11:46, Joe wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:14:47 +0100 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> 
> >> Sorry I can't offer more details: I'm not "in" the intricacies of
> >> desktop environments. For me, they are too intricate and finicky,
> >> therefore I prefer to run without.
> >> 
> >> I mount my media explicitly.
> > 
> > So do I. If I don't want a USB stick mounted, I don't plug it in.
> 
> That's not explicit; it's invoking the implicit mount which your system
> is configured to execute upon the device being connected.

Exactly. Perhaps I was too concise. With "explicit" I meant that I always
issue the mount command in a command line myself.

[a couple of good reasons elided]

> I imagine there may be other possibilities...

Yes: file system code is not well tested with malicious file systems.
There may be an exploit lurking there. If I don't trust the USB stick,
I don't mount it right away, but I might want to have a look at the
raw data (or perhaps mount it from a VM).

> > I don't want any applications or media to autorun, but I do want the
> > filesystems mounted.
> 
> That's an entirely reasonable usage pattern, but it is not explicit
> mounting, and there are legitimate reasons why someone might want
> different behavior.

Agreed. The nice thing is that each one of us can have her/his own
way :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgx4pUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbR3wCcDFsQE/NzevtX24rhmRRx68SO
u+sAn1sd8r4VK2r9I0W2zggmKxqZRZqM
=NfNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#174919

On 11/20/2016 7:58 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 13:33:51 +0100
> Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
>
>> Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Richard Owlett a écrit :
>>> Not as I read them.
>>
>> Then you did not read correctly.
>>
>>> They give methods of handling an explicitly specified device.
>>
>> Tomas' answer contains the solution to your problem: the umask mount
>> option. This it, no more no less.
>>
>> To know how to actually use it, re-read Tomas' answer, RTFM, RTFW or
>> hire a consultant. But you have your answer.
>
> Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device.
>
> There *is* a generic answer, which requires no fstab entry, but I have
> to admit that I haven't a clue what it is.
>
> I'm running sid with systemd, with absolutely nothing in /etc/fstab
> which refers to USB sticks, but nonetheless any USB stick inserted is
> recognised and automounted under /media/joe (maybe immediately and maybe
> on access, I'm not sure, but it shows instantly in file managers) with
> everything in a FAT partition having ownership of joe:me and
> permissions of 644. Ext partitions have their own permissions, as
> expected.
>
> This all Just Works, and I have no idea what configuration it depends
> on. "I didn't build this," sid basically builds and rebuilds itself, so
> I tend to keep my fingers out of the works. I do know that USB sticks
> were a real pain with usbmount, which *sometimes* mounted the entire
> device instead of the partitions, and at some point, things just
> started working better.
>
> There is nothing in /etc/polkit-1, /etc/udev or /etc/udisks2 referring
> to USB sticks, which are the most likely suspects as far as I can see.
> Presumably the culprit is systemd, as usual, so possibly someone more
> knowledgable about this beast can finish my part-answer.
>

Do you have a file named "pmount.allow"?
Web searches turn up references to it, but haven't found any 
details on syntax and/or examples.

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

#174923

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 08:10:09 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 11/20/2016 7:58 AM, Joe wrote:
> >
> >This all Just Works, and I have no idea what configuration it depends
> >on. "I didn't build this," sid basically builds and rebuilds itself, so
> >I tend to keep my fingers out of the works. I do know that USB sticks
> >were a real pain with usbmount, which *sometimes* mounted the entire
> >device instead of the partitions, and at some point, things just
> >started working better.
> >
> >There is nothing in /etc/polkit-1, /etc/udev or /etc/udisks2 referring
> >to USB sticks, which are the most likely suspects as far as I can see.
> >Presumably the culprit is systemd, as usual, so possibly someone more
> >knowledgable about this beast can finish my part-answer.
> >
> 
> Do you have a file named "pmount.allow"?
> Web searches turn up references to it, but haven't found any details on
> syntax and/or examples.

/etc/pmount.allow is created when pmount is installed. The manual tells
you everything you need to know about it. With "/dev/sda1" as a line in
the file you can mount the partition with 'pmount sda1'.

I'd not think you would need to populate pmount.allow for a removable
device.

-- 
Brian.

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

#174927

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 08:10:09 -0600
Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:


> Do you have a file named "pmount.allow"?
> Web searches turn up references to it, but haven't found any 
> details on syntax and/or examples.
> 
> 
> 

I don't have pmount installed. I tried it years ago, when I was having
usbmount trouble, and now can't remember why, but it wasn't the right
answer.

-- 
Joe

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

#174920

I'll answer with something a little bit like Joe's answer.  On my daily 
working machine, which uses Wheezy, I use Dophin as a file manager.

After I plug in a USB stick, after a few seconds (maybe up to 20??), a new 
entry appears on the left hand list of partitions in Dolphin.  If I click on 
that, the files are displayed in the (current working) pane of Dolphin, and I 
can use the mouse to drag and drop them, open them, or similar.

The top of that dophin pane shows where the device is mounted, for example, 
/media/84BE-2329/.

If I then go to a CLI and refer to that mountpoint, I can access the files.

To anticipate an answer to your potential next question, there is no 
pmount.allow file on this computer.

I may try the same thing on my future daily working machine, using Jessie 
(and, iiuc, systemd or whatever it is called).  If I try that, I'll let you 
know.



On Sunday, November 20, 2016 08:58:04 AM Joe wrote:
> There *is* a generic answer, which requires no fstab entry, but I have
> to admit that I haven't a clue what it is.
> 
> I'm running sid with systemd, with absolutely nothing in /etc/fstab
> which refers to USB sticks, but nonetheless any USB stick inserted is
> recognised and automounted under /media/joe (maybe immediately and maybe
> on access, I'm not sure, but it shows instantly in file managers) with
> everything in a FAT partition having ownership of joe:me and
> permissions of 644. Ext partitions have their own permissions, as
> expected.
> 
> This all Just Works, and I have no idea what configuration it depends
> on. "I didn't build this," sid basically builds and rebuilds itself, so
> I tend to keep my fingers out of the works. I do know that USB sticks
> were a real pain with usbmount, which *sometimes* mounted the entire
> device instead of the partitions, and at some point, things just
> started working better.
> 
> There is nothing in /etc/polkit-1, /etc/udev or /etc/udisks2 referring
> to USB sticks, which are the most likely suspects as far as I can see.
> Presumably the culprit is systemd, as usual, so possibly someone more
> knowledgable about this beast can finish my part-answer.

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

#174931

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 13:58:04 +0000, Joe wrote:

> I'm running sid with systemd, with absolutely nothing in /etc/fstab
> which refers to USB sticks, but nonetheless any USB stick inserted is
> recognised and automounted under /media/joe (maybe immediately and maybe
> on access, I'm not sure, but it shows instantly in file managers) with
> everything in a FAT partition having ownership of joe:me and
> permissions of 644. Ext partitions have their own permissions, as
> expected.

This is done through the agency of the udisks2 daemon and gvfs.

-- 
Brian.

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

#174933

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

Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit :
> Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device. 

Tomas' answer points to the umask mount option. Since all current
reasonable methods for accessing an USB stick in FAT end up using the
mount system call, it is THE solution.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#174934

On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 19:41:59 +0000, Joe wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:45:27 +0100
> Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> 
> > Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit :
> > > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device.   
> > 
> > Tomas' answer points to the umask mount option. Since all current
> > reasonable methods for accessing an USB stick in FAT end up using the
> > mount system call, it is THE solution.
> > 
> 
> Conceptually so, but some means of mounting USB sticks do not involve
> the user explicitly issuing a mount command.

A user cannot issue the command 'mount /dev/foo mnt -oumask=000'. Well,
she/he can - but it won't get them anywhere.

-- 
Brian

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

#174935

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:45:27 +0100
Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit :
> > Tomas' answer contains *a* solution, for a specific device.   
> 
> Tomas' answer points to the umask mount option. Since all current
> reasonable methods for accessing an USB stick in FAT end up using the
> mount system call, it is THE solution.
> 

Conceptually so, but some means of mounting USB sticks do not involve
the user explicitly issuing a mount command.

-- 
Joe

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web