Bug 212443

Summary: 60-fuse.rules error at boot in udev
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mace Moneta <moneta.mace>
Component: udevAssignee: Harald Hoyer <harald>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6CC: farrellj, fedora, joukj
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-10-29 10:04:09 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Mace Moneta 2006-10-26 15:49:23 EDT
Description of problem:

At boot, udev complains:

Oct 26 14:41:26 buggsb udevd[398]: add_to_rules: invalid KERNEL operation
Oct 26 14:41:26 buggsb udevd[398]: add_to_rules: invalid rule

As a result, /dev/fuse has incorrect permissions.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install fuse, and a filesystem (e.g., fuse-sshfs)
2. Add a user to the fuse group
3. Reboot

Actual results:

Can't use fuse filesystem, because of incorrect permissions

Expected results:

Successful mount

Additional info: It looks like the syntax error is an "=" instead of an "==" in
Comment 1 Jason Farrell 2006-10-26 23:05:51 EDT
I see the same error at boot. a "chmod 660 /dev/fuse" allows sshfs to work
temporarily, but the udev rule needs to updated for subsequent boots.
Comment 2 Harald Hoyer 2006-10-27 03:23:16 EDT
/etc/udev/rules.d/60-fuse.rules is not part of the udev component..

Query the Component with
$ rpm -qf /etc/udev/rules.d/60-fuse.rules
Comment 3 Mace Moneta 2006-10-27 09:46:31 EDT
/etc/udev/rules.d/60-fuse.rules is part of the 'fuse' package, but bugzilla
doesn't list a fuse component, so I picked udev as the closest match.
Comment 4 Russell Harrison 2006-10-27 19:11:06 EDT
I'm also seeing this problem on the released version of FC6
Comment 5 Dawid Gajownik 2006-10-29 10:04:09 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 208343 ***