Bug 1027038
| Summary: | libvirt-manager fails to open install ISO | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jeremy Harris <jeharris> |
| Component: | libvirt | Assignee: | Libvirt Maintainers <libvirt-maint> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 20 | CC: | berrange, clalancette, itamar, jforbes, jyang, laine, libvirt-maint, veillard, virt-maint |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-11-06 09:08:21 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Jeremy Harris
2013-11-06 00:11:46 UTC
The chown of the iso to qemu:qemu is normal; that is done because the qemu process is run as qemu:qemu (to prevent a compromised qemu process from doing anything nasty). This problem was reported last week in Bug 1025355, and I reproduced it. The issue seems to be that one of the parent directories of the image file (usually /home/$user) is set to mode 710 (or possibly 700) so even changing the owner of the file itself to qemu:qemu doesn't help. virt-manager is supposed to ask if you want to fix this problem, and fix it. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1025355 *** I realise I'm shouting into the void here, but... these were My Files. Why do you, qemu, go and *steal* them? Perfectly reasonable for you to say "I need this .iso world-readable, and the path searchable". But changing the ownerships? Hey - go the whole hog and move them somewhere else, or encrypt them or something... If it isn't clear, I think you're violating the principle of least astonishment. |