From: VISP S. A. <nm...@vi...> - 2002-03-29 23:20:16
|
Got another one i'm trying to figure out.. Mounting hostfs for my /home and /var/spool/mail folders so they can share a much larger shared drive within their own directories. The problem: say I create user 'nate', and login with 'nate'. Then I want to create a file in my home directory (which is permissioned correctly) bash-2.05$ touch ookbleah.txt touch: setting times of `ookbleah.txt': Permission denied bash-2.05$ ls -al total 16 drwx------ 3 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:17 . drwxr-xr-x 16 21606 users 4096 Mar 28 16:41 .. -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 28 16:17 .bash_history -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 29 15:16 ookbleah.txt drwx------ 2 root root 4096 Mar 29 15:04 .ssh drwxr-xr-x 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:15 WWW bash-2.05$ and another example using mkdir.. it doesn't whine about permissions, but it does not set the permissions right either. bash-2.05$ mkdir ookbleah bash-2.05$ ls -al total 20 drwx------ 3 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:17 . drwxr-xr-x 16 21606 users 4096 Mar 28 16:41 .. -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 28 16:17 .bash_history drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Mar 29 15:17 ookbleah -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 29 15:16 ookbleah.txt drwx------ 2 root root 4096 Mar 29 15:04 .ssh drwxr-xr-x 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:15 WWW You'll also note that when creating the user when it put the /skel files in there, they were created as root as well. On the flip side, the /var/spool/mail directory which is mounted identical, all the permissions in there are fine. Each mailspool is chowned properly; however, it's sendmail/procmail that is doing that and not the user. Is there a simple way around this? ---------------------------------- Nathan Miller Visp Systems Administration Voice: 541-476-5352 ext. 4 |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-29 23:33:18
|
VISP Systems Administration wrote: > Got another one i'm trying to figure out.. > > Mounting hostfs for my /home and /var/spool/mail folders so they can share > a much larger shared drive within their own directories. > > The problem: > say I create user 'nate', and login with 'nate'. Is there a 'nate' user on the host with the same UID/GID? What user is the UML instance running as (I'd guess root). AFAIK, hostfs will ONLY create files using the UID of whoever started UML, independently of the UID of UML process. The problem with your permissions comes about because; ookbleah.txt is owned by root on the host. Mounted under hostfs on the UML instance, it's still 'uid=0' - 'nate' goes to write to it, and the obvious permissions problem is thrown up. You 'mkdir ookbleah' as 'nate', but when hostfs creates the directory on the host, it uses the UID of the user who started UML, which is 0. As far as UML is concered, that is owned by uid 0, so 'nate' can't write to it. -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-29 23:34:22
|
VISP Systems Administration wrote: > On the flip side, the /var/spool/mail directory which is mounted identical, > all the permissions in there are fine. Each mailspool is chowned properly; > however, it's sendmail/procmail that is doing that and not the user. Oops, forgot that. Each of those are running as root on the UML instance, so they can change permissions via hostfs properly. Try 'suing' to root and doing the stuff you were trying before. -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-30 00:04:23
|
Nathan Miller wrote: > Root behaves nicely. no probs here. So, does that solve the 'problem'? -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: Nathan M. <nmi...@vi...> - 2002-03-30 00:16:31
|
I hate to refer to it as a 'problem' because its more likely a misconfig/user error on my part than a 'problem'. Doesn't fix the problem I'm having. If I run as 'su' then I can read/write files fine w/o the permissions problem at all. The issue is, if I ssh/login as userid other than root then it whacks' the permissions out of shape such as the previous example. Tried chmod u+s /bin/touch. that kills the error, but then no matter what user touches it a file, it is then owned by root. =o Still looking for a solution, still stuck at this dilemma. bash-2.05$ touch testphile touch: setting times of `testphile': Permission denied bash-2.05$ ls -al total 20 drwx------ 4 nmiller users 4096 Mar 29 16:06 . drwxr-xr-x 18 root users 4096 Mar 29 14:22 .. -rwxr-xr-x 1 nmiller users 175 Mar 29 16:06 .bash_history -rwxr-xr-x 1 nmiller users 0 Mar 29 15:52 ookbleah.txt drwx------ 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 29 16:06 .ssh -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 29 16:11 testphile drwxr-xr-x 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:15 WWW I am assuming (i know bad word).. that when it writes via hostfs, somehow hostfs when called by a user other than root is attempting to do a chown (or uml kernel equiv) by the userid on the host system rather than as root while the file is still owned by root. another quick example in a clean homedir.. bash-2.05$ whoami nmiller bash-2.05$ echo "ookbleah" > testphile bash-2.05$ echo "ookbleah" > testphile bash: testphile: Permission denied bash-2.05$ creates the file no problem, but being chown'd by root, modifications are impossible by file that user created. At 12:04 AM 3/30/2002 +0000, David Coulson wrote: >Nathan Miller wrote: >>Root behaves nicely. no probs here. > >So, does that solve the 'problem'? > >-- >David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ >d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ > ------ Nathan Miller - nm...@vi... VISP Technologies - "Building Better ISPs" |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-30 00:31:01
|
Nathan Miller wrote: > I hate to refer to it as a 'problem' because its more likely a > misconfig/user error on my part than a 'problem'. The only way to have all this working properly, is to mount /home and /var/spool/mail over NFS, rather hostfs. David. -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: Tushar J. <tj...@tu...> - 2002-03-31 15:37:11
|
I'm having the same problem and the solution was basically not to use hostfs and to use a single file as the filesystem. This has a draw back that you can't edit the file system outside of the uml while the uml is running. But at least it will set the file permissions on the files correctly. The only work around I can see would be to change the uml code to set the permissions of the files depending on who created them and run uml as root. Tushar On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 04:16:22PM -0800, Nathan Miller wrote: > I hate to refer to it as a 'problem' because its more likely a > misconfig/user error on my part than a 'problem'. > > Doesn't fix the problem I'm having. If I run as 'su' then I can read/write > files fine w/o the permissions problem at all. > > The issue is, if I ssh/login as userid other than root then it whacks' the > permissions out of shape such as the previous example. > > Tried chmod u+s /bin/touch. that kills the error, but then no matter what > user touches it a file, it is then owned by root. =o > > Still looking for a solution, still stuck at this dilemma. > > bash-2.05$ touch testphile > touch: setting times of `testphile': Permission denied > bash-2.05$ ls -al > total 20 > drwx------ 4 nmiller users 4096 Mar 29 16:06 . > drwxr-xr-x 18 root users 4096 Mar 29 14:22 .. > -rwxr-xr-x 1 nmiller users 175 Mar 29 16:06 .bash_history > -rwxr-xr-x 1 nmiller users 0 Mar 29 15:52 ookbleah.txt > drwx------ 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 29 16:06 .ssh > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Mar 29 16:11 testphile > drwxr-xr-x 2 nmiller users 4096 Mar 28 16:15 WWW > > > I am assuming (i know bad word).. that when it writes via hostfs, somehow > hostfs when called by a user other than root is attempting to do a chown > (or uml kernel equiv) by the userid on the host system rather than as root > while the file is still owned by root. > > another quick example in a clean homedir.. > > bash-2.05$ whoami > nmiller > bash-2.05$ echo "ookbleah" > testphile > bash-2.05$ echo "ookbleah" > testphile > bash: testphile: Permission denied > bash-2.05$ > > creates the file no problem, but being chown'd by root, modifications are > impossible by file that user created. > > At 12:04 AM 3/30/2002 +0000, David Coulson wrote: > >Nathan Miller wrote: > >>Root behaves nicely. no probs here. > > > >So, does that solve the 'problem'? > > > >-- > >David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ > >d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ > > > > ------ > Nathan Miller - nm...@vi... > VISP Technologies - "Building Better ISPs" > > > _______________________________________________ > User-mode-linux-user mailing list > Use...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user -- -------------------------------------------------------- | Turtle Networks Ltd. | | Unit 48, Concord Road, London W3 0TH | | Tel: (020) 8992 7008 | Fax: (020) 8992 7017 | | www.turtle.net | tj...@tu... | -------------------------------------------------------- |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-31 15:42:09
|
Tushar Joshi wrote: > The only work around I can see would be to change the uml code > to set the permissions of the files depending on who created them and run > uml as root. AKA "Use NFS". -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: Tushar J. <tj...@tu...> - 2002-03-31 15:47:21
|
I'm just worried about I/O speed on this issue which is why I used host/fs in the first place as opposed to a loop file. There again NFS might be faster than a single file. I suppose I'll try out the NFS approach and get UML to mount root on NFS. Tushar On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 04:41:55PM +0100, David Coulson wrote: > Tushar Joshi wrote: > > The only work around I can see would be to change the uml code > > to set the permissions of the files depending on who created them and run > > uml as root. > > AKA "Use NFS". > > -- > David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ > d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ > -- -------------------------------------------------------- | Turtle Networks Ltd. | | Unit 48, Concord Road, London W3 0TH | | Tel: (020) 8992 7008 | Fax: (020) 8992 7017 | | www.turtle.net | tj...@tu... | -------------------------------------------------------- |
From: David C. <da...@da...> - 2002-03-31 15:53:39
|
Tushar Joshi wrote: > I'm just worried about I/O speed on this issue which is why I used host/fs > in the first place as opposed to a loop file. There again NFS might be > faster than a single file. I suppose I'll try out the NFS approach and get > UML to mount root on NFS. Well, you have to trade I/O speed off against the ability to write to the filesystem while UML is running. Do you need high I/O on the parts of the filesystem which you need to write to? It might be worth doing a mix of 'single filesystem file' and NFS to achieve both depending upon what you're doing. -- David Coulson http://davidcoulson.net/ d...@vi... http://journal.davidcoulson.net/ |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-31 18:38:31
|
tj...@tu... said: > But at least it will set the file permissions on the files correctly. There are no permissions problems if you run UML as the user and the user is root inside UML. In that case, all of the permissions work out fine. > The only work around I can see would be to change the uml code to set > the permissions of the files depending on who created them and run uml > as root. That's not going to happen. Jeff |
From: Tushar J. <tj...@tu...> - 2002-03-31 20:25:43
|
But if you run uml as user x and then have 20 different users inside uml using hostfs all with different userids then there is a problem. What I basically was saying is that it's fine if you only want one user inside uml then there's no problem. But if you want different users to use the uml system and all have different userids then I suspect hostfs won't work in that situation? At least I couldn't get it to work. Using a file as the filesystem presents no problems. But from what I understand there is more overhead in a file approach. Alternatively NFS would also get round the problem. I'll try some disk i/o stats programs out on different systems hostfs/nfs and loop device and see what the results are. Tushar On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 08:40:53AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > tj...@tu... said: > > But at least it will set the file permissions on the files correctly. > > There are no permissions problems if you run UML as the user and the user > is root inside UML. In that case, all of the permissions work out fine. > > > The only work around I can see would be to change the uml code to set > > the permissions of the files depending on who created them and run uml > > as root. > > That's not going to happen. > > Jeff -- -------------------------------------------------------- | Turtle Networks Ltd. | | Unit 48, Concord Road, London W3 0TH | | Tel: (020) 8992 7008 | Fax: (020) 8992 7017 | | www.turtle.net | tj...@tu... | -------------------------------------------------------- |