On 12/23/11 16:11, Da Rock wrote:
On 12/23/11 15:37, Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:18:19 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
I checked out /media/hal-* and I see that the mount occurs only as
root.
How do I change that exactly? I need it showing for operator group.
I've
searched high and low and googled my brains out, but anything remotely
related is for linux and udev.
I had a feeling you'd be replying to this one :)
I think I remember I got it working some time ago
(on a 7.1 system), relying on the Gnome HAL FAQ
which stated something like this:
File: /usr/local/etc/PolicyKit/PolicyKit.conf
<config version="0.1">
<match action="org.freedesktop.hal.storage.mount-removable">
<match user="marcus">
<return result="NNNNN"/>
</match>
</match>
<match action="org.freedesktop.hal.storage.mount-fixed">
<match user="marcus">
<return result="NNNNN"/>
</match>
</match>
</config>
For "NNNNN", use your user name; I think you can also
use more than one "match" section if you want to allow
access for other users. However, I doubt all this
HAL / DBUS / PolicyKit magic is really intended for
multi-user purposes. :-)
Followed that and done that, didn't work. Although it does say
'result="yes"' not "user". Sorry: that was the freebsd-gnome FAQ.
Do you see any way of using "group" instead of "user"?
Incidentally, the disk shows up (in case I wasn't being all too
clear), as a user I can't access it. And in the hal-tab it shows -u=0
as I said. I hunted down that scenario and it sent me down a very
foggy path using hal-fdi's - setting -uid and -u settings.
I then checked out /usr/local/share/hal/fdi/policy/ and found in some
files (particularly storage) the "key" options are set to "u=" or "uid=".
Ok, more data: I believe I'm getting closer. If I set Polkit.conf to
match a user rather than a group I fail immediately with permission
errors, same as before. However, if I use the group then I get:
DBus error org.gtk.Private.RemoteVolumeMonitor.Failed: An operation is
already pending
dbus-launch gnome-mount --verbose... blah blah (as per instructions for
debug output at freebsd-gnome hal faq) simply hangs, like this:
dbus-launch gnome-mount --block --no-ui --verbose --hal-udi
'/org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_uuid_1061_EF39'
gnome-mount 0.8
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: Mounting
/org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_uuid_1061_EF39
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: read default option 'longnames' from gconf
strlist key /system/storage/default_options/vfat/mount_options
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: read default option '-u=' from gconf
strlist key /system/storage/default_options/vfat/mount_options
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: Mounting
/org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_uuid_1061_EF39 with mount_point='',
fstype='', num_options=2
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: option='longnames'
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: option='-u=1001'
Interestingly enough, if I try it with the user instead of group I get
the last option there saying -u=0. And /media/.hal-mtab shows that too.
In this case I get just .hal-mtab-lock file.
Something interesting just happened- after 20mins or so nautilus barfs
up a message about being unable to mount the drive:
DBus error org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NoReply: Did not receive a reply.
Possible causes include: the remote application did not send a reply,
the message bus security policy blocked the reply, the reply timeout
expired, or the network connection was broken.
So I'm still attempting to assimilate all that to produce something
other than a brainfart, and possibly restore balance to the force in
that way.
Oh, and to preclude any suggestion to this effect, I have set
vfs.usermount=1.
Note that HAL also has an option of "fixed mount points"
to be set at compile time. I think I had set it...
No. At least I don't think I set it.
I'm also unsure if NFS mounts are "fixed" or "removable"
in PK terminology.
Nothing is clear on any of this. Which nutcase designed this anyway?
Any documentation is vague and unclear, and the software config itself
is about as clear as the weather on venus- and just as toxic too ;)
Regarding your second question, I can't provide any
further information. I just assume it's a means to
turn a safe multi-user system into an insecure
single-user system, which is what users expect. :-)
Dear god! What is this world coming to? And yet they all clamour to
use the computer at the same time... thats the scene I see in families
all the time, let alone work operations.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
