Bug 17225 - Ordinary user can't print: Permission denied
Summary: Ordinary user can't print: Permission denied
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: LPRng   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 1.0
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Crutcher Dunnavant
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2000-09-04 01:50 UTC by Matthew Saltzman
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2000-09-11 16:53:04 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthew Saltzman 2000-09-04 01:50:31 UTC
This is LPRng-3.6.22-3 rebuilt for RH6.2.  When a normal user attempts
to print a file, he gets the message:

	Warning - Cannot open file 'xxx.txt', Permission denied
	lp: nothing to print

xxx.txt has permissions -rw-rw-r--, and has the user as owner and group.

Root can print the same file with no problems.

Comment 1 Crutcher Dunnavant 2000-09-11 16:13:34 UTC
can you send me the result of the following commands?

ls -l `which lpr`
ls -ld .

thanks, but yes, there were some, ah, issues, that are probably fixed in the
coming version.

Comment 2 Matthew Saltzman 2000-09-11 16:53:02 UTC
[mjs@yankee ~]: ls -l `which lpr`
-rwsr-xr-x    1 lp       lp         462344 Sep  3 18:55 /usr/bin/lpr*
[mjs@yankee ~]: ls -ld .
drwx------   95 mjs      mjs          6144 Sep 11 12:46 ./

Possibly related: On reboot, lpd complained:
	cannot open lp device '/dev/lp0' - Permission denied

[mjs@yankee ~]: ls -l /dev/lp0
crw-rw----    1 root     daemon     6,   0 May  5  1998 /dev/lp0

Comment 3 Crutcher Dunnavant 2000-09-18 16:50:16 UTC
Hmm, /dev/lp* should look like this, so make that owner change
crw-rw----    1 root     lp         6,   0 Aug 24 05:00 /dev/lp0

and you should also chmod all the user tools (lpr, lpstat, lpq, lpc) to 0755,
they should NOT be setuid.

These are already address in-house, so there is no fix.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.