Bug 212443

Summary:	60-fuse.rules error at boot in udev
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Mace Moneta <moneta.mace>
Component:	udev	Assignee:	Harald Hoyer <harald>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6	CC:	farrellj, fedora, joukj
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-10-29 15:04:09 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Mace Moneta 2006-10-26 19:49:23 UTC

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
'/etc/udev/rules.d/60-fuse.rules:1'

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

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

fuse-2.5.3-4.fc6

How reproducible:

Always

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
/etc/udev/rules.d/60-fuse.rules.

Comment 1 Jason Farrell 2006-10-27 03:05:51 UTC

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 07:23:16 UTC

/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 13:46:31 UTC

/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 23:11:06 UTC

I'm also seeing this problem on the released version of FC6

Comment 5 Dawid Gajownik 2006-10-29 15:04:09 UTC


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