/usr gehört plötzlich 501.501

[ReinerS]

Hmm, strange,
Since yesterday evening I had strange effects on my laptop. Virtual-Box refused to start, some other programs like htop were just hanging until closed via CTRL+C.
I examined this today morning and found that /usr and anyhing beneath it was owned by user/group 501.501.
For why this is so I have no explanation at all as normal user/group numbers start nowadays at 1000.1000. Earlier times (long ago) they started at 500.500.
501 doesn't exist on my box neither as user nor as group. My system was uptodate.
I am resetting that to root with find and chown. We will see wether this helps

Hmm,
komische Geschichte.
Seit gestern Abend habe ich seltsame Effekte auf meinem Laptop. Virtual-Box startete nicht mehr, andere Progaramme wie htop hingen einfach bis sie mit CRTL+C bendet wurden.
Habe es heute morgen nochmal untersucht und festgestellt dass auf einmal /usr und alles was dahinter liegt dem user/group 501.501 gehört.
Warum und wieso ist mir absolut unerklärlich da die normalen User/Group nummern heutzutage be 1000.1000 beginnen. Früher (Sehr viel früher) war das mal 500.500.
501 gibt es auf meinem Rechner weder als User noch als group. Mein System war auf dem aktuellen Stand.
Ich setzte das mal mit find und chown auf root zurück, mal sehen ob das reicht.


Grüße

Reiner

Edit:Virtual-Box refused to run because /usr  wasn't owned by root
Virtual-Box wollte nicht starten weil /usr nicht root gehörte.

[michaa7]

habt ihr schon nach geschaut, ob bei euch /usr auch 501.501 gehört, ist bei nämlich auch so.

Google bringt das mit "condor" (was immer das ist), oder mit flash in verbindung.

Same here, /usr und some subdirectories are owend by 501:501 .

First, /usr is supposed to be owend by root:root, second there is no user 501

~$ cat /etc/passwd | grep 501
<user>@<pc>:~$

[reddark]

bei mir ist besitzer root.
Letztes update ist aber auch schon ein paar tage her ....

[michaa7]

...
Ich setzte das mal mit find und chown auf root zurück, mal sehen ob das reicht.

Du setzt setzt dafür wohl das ergebnis vom "find ? ? ?" als variable in
chown root:root ${?}, oder? Wie genau geht das?

[cryptosteve]

bei mir ist besitzer root.

dito hier ...

Letztes update ist aber auch schon ein paar tage her ....

hier nicht, minutenaktuell ...

[ReinerS]

I have done that in 3 steps in a terminal/console as root:

• Changed /usr back root.root (chown root.root /usr) and then changed directory to /usr.
• I changed the owner of the directories recursive with find . -type d -exec chown root.root {} \;
• I changed the owner of the files recursive with find . -type f -exec chown root.root {} \;

Ich habe das in 3 Schritten innerhalb eines Terminals / einer Konsole als root duchgeführt:

• Den Besitzer von /usr zurück auf roo.root (chown root.root /usr) gesetzt und dann nach  /usr gewechselt.
• Den Besitzer der Verzeichnisse rekursiv geändert mit find . -type d -exec chown root.root {} \;
• Den Besitzer der Dateien rekursiv geändert mit find . -type f -exec chown root.root {} \;

Grüße


Reiner

[michaa7]

Are you sure *all* directories and files in /usr belong to root? If so, you could achive this much easier: chown -R root:root /usr

I did use your command, but aborted it until I am sure about this ques
tion.

ist das egal ob root.root oder root:root ?
Und verzeichnisse und dateien ausserhalb vom /usr findest du so nicht.

Wie lange dauert das etwas?

Ich frage weil ich immer wieder probleme mit "find" habe, was sehr schnell alle resourcen belegt und weiteres hantieren mit dem rechner unmöglich wird, ich komme dann nichtmal mehr an eine konsole, kann den grafikserven nicht abschießen, gar nichts.

Does it matter whether I use root.root or root:root ?
And directories or files outside of /usr you won't find.

How long does it take?

sidenote:
I am asking because I tried and find catches all ressources and I cannot do anything with the computer after a few minutes. I have this problem quite each day when find deamon chronjob (I have no clue) jumps in and completly take over my computer. If I do not notice it within a few minutes I lose the all means to steer my computer (no mouse, no successfull login to terminal or konsole, nothing), so  "find" is a problem here,
/sidenote

[cas]

/usr/local and subdirectories are ownend by group "staff" on one box (32), but not one another (64, du sometime ago) . This group exists (GID 50), but nobody is inside this group. So I think I have to change it like ReinerS did.

Greetings, C

Code: [Select]

cas@lifo:/etc$ ls -l /usr/local/
insgesamt 32
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 bin
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 etc
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 games
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 include
drwxrwsr-x 8 root staff 4096 Jun  5 00:24 lib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root staff    9 Dez 31  2013 man -> share/man
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 sbin
drwxrwsr-x 9 root staff 4096 Jun  5 00:24 share
drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 Dez 31  2013 src


[cas]

man chown says ":". Never seen "user.group", but who knows.

It takes exactly as long, as find takes without "exec". As /etc is usually quite small, it shouldn't take too long.
Here a "find /etc" took 12 sec, where I have many files in /etc because of etckeeper.

Greetings, C

[ReinerS]

man chown says ":". Never seen "user.group", but who knows.

Ooopps, I was just believing the other way around. I never used ":" until now.

I did only care for directories and files within /usr. If you want to find (and only to find) directories and files from the whole system you have to change to / and do:
find . -user 501 -group 501.
But beware: Do not change directories and files automaticly as some or a lot of them might need to belong to other users (i.e. /home, /var etc).

Well and it looks really that is was caused by flash. I just looked into the tar packages and found "501.501" all over there.
And therefore in this case only /usr was effected.

Hopefully we get rid of this stuff in not too far away future !!

regards

Reiner

Edit: As I just found out (http://www.jux-net.info/jux2/docs/sys100/comm_26.html) chown user.group seems to be vaild too. 

[ReinerS]

@michaa7:

re you sure *all* directories and files in /usr belong to root? If so, you could achive this much easier: chown -R root:root /usr

No I am not sure of that. But hoped it would do no harm as I donot /cannot know about the real owner of eachs directory or file within /usr.

Yes you are right, a chown -R root:root /usr would have been sufficient.
But as I use the find-solution quite often on other purposes it came first into my mind.

I could also better have explicitly have done a find for items belonging to user 501 and group 501 and only change those to root:root, but this just now came into my mind. This propably would have been more exact and much faster.
 

regards

Reiner

[michaa7]

...
Here a "find /etc" took 12 sec, where I have many files in /etc because of etckeeper.

Greetings, C

But we were talking about /usr not /etc

and don't change user "staff", that is a regular debian user with *limited* root privileges.

@ Rainer

Thanks!

[der_bud]

Are you sure *all* directories and files in /usr belong to root?...

Here on 32bit all but /usr/local belong to root:root, while local and the dirs inside belong to root:staff (0 50).

Code: [Select]

ls -lan /usr
insgesamt 176
drwxr-xr-x  10 0  0  4096 Jan  8  2014 .
drwxr-xr-x  22 0  0  4096 Aug 19 08:34 ..
drwxr-xr-x   2 0  0 69632 Aug 20 08:00 bin
drwxr-xr-x   2 0  0  4096 Mai  6  2013 games
drwxr-xr-x  32 0  0 20480 Aug 18 10:21 include                                                                                                                   
drwxr-xr-x 102 0  0 36864 Aug 19 09:36 lib                                                                                                                       
drwxrwsr-x  10 0 50  4096 Jan  8  2014 local                                                                                                                     
drwxr-xr-x   2 0  0 12288 Aug 19 09:41 sbin                                                                                                                     
drwxr-xr-x 216 0  0 12288 Aug 19 09:41 share                                                                                                                     
drwxr-xr-x   7 0  0  4096 Aug 19 08:33 src


ls -lan /usr/local
insgesamt 40
drwxrwsr-x 10 0 50 4096 Jan  8  2014 .
drwxr-xr-x 10 0  0 4096 Jan  8  2014 ..
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 bin
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 etc
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 games
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 include
drwxrwsr-x  7 0 50 4096 Jun  6 10:14 lib
lrwxrwxrwx  1 0 50    9 Dez 31  2013 man -> share/man
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 sbin
drwxrwsr-x  8 0 50 4096 Jun  6 10:14 share
drwxrwsr-x  2 0 50 4096 Dez 31  2013 src

Meanwhile, /etc/passwd has no entry for ID 50 or staff, but as michaa7 said that seems to be a debian default.

---

... As I just found out (http://www.jux-net.info/jux2/docs/sys100/comm_26.html) chown user.group seems to be vaild too.  ...

man chown tells us for complete documentation one could use

Code: [Select]

$ info coreutils 'chown invocation'
There one can find

Code: [Select]

  Some older scripts may still use `.' in place of the `:' separator.
POSIX 1003.1-2001 (*note Standards conformance::) does not require
support for that, but for backward compatibility GNU `chown' supports
`.' so long as no ambiguity results.  New scripts should avoid the use
of `.' because it is not portable, and because it has undesirable
results if the entire OWNER`.'GROUP happens to identify a user whose
name contains `.'.

[michaa7]

Are you sure *all* directories and files in /usr belong to root?...

Here on 32bit all but /usr/local belong to root:root, while local and the dirs inside belong to root:staff (0 50).

Thanks der_bud for the info. I change it accordingly.

@ all
Does anyone still have older flash...tar.gz files stored (I overwrite the old file with each newone as supposably most people do)? The newest version has all directories and files owned by 501:501. I'd like to verify whether or not this is limited to the newest version or not. So please let me know flash version+owner+arch32/64 as I want to write a bug report or get in direct contact with the author of flashplugin-update.

[der_bud]

In a virtualbox machine where I did not update flash for two weeks there is a /var/cache/flashplugin-nonfree/install_flash_player_11_linux.i386.tar.gz, dating from August 04 (Flash Player Version 11.2.202.400 according to readme.txt).

Inside that .tar.gz file is a /usr-directory dating from July 27 with 501:501 (but,to repeat, on that system with that flashplayer my /usr has 0:0, so the flash-update two weeks ago did nothing wrong).

---
EDIT: I just did update-flashplugin -ivv just to realize that the version above already is the newest available one.