Weird Permissions in 2010 Install

[kjpetrie]

First I found that / was owned by 502. There is no user 502! Now I have found /usr is owned by 502:games, as is /usr/share, /usr/share/locale and everything in it.

I'm sure it should be root:root. That's what I'm changing it to.

Am I alone?

[Texstar]

First I found that / was owned by 502. There is no user 502! Now I have found /usr is owned by 502:games, as is /usr/share, /usr/share/locale and everything in it.

I'm sure it should be root:root. That's what I'm changing it to.

Am I alone?

All my stuff says root:root.

[Old-Polack]

First I found that / was owned by 502. There is no user 502! Now I have found /usr is owned by 502:games, as is /usr/share, /usr/share/locale and everything in it.

I'm sure it should be root:root. That's what I'm changing it to.

Am I alone?

All my stuff says root:root.

Mine too. You don't suppose that kjpetrie got that special April 1st edition we sneaked in there, do you?

I've been wondering who got that golden Easter egg.

[kjpetrie]

I think it's an exclusive edition for non-US users!

Addlocale having some fun?

Games is gid 100 on my machine by the way. Wonder if Pinoc has a machine with a user with uid of 502 and gid 100?

[pinoc]

kjpetrie, you are correct, the addlocale archives permissions are the culprit here, sorry, all my fault and being fixed right now, quite embarrassing ...    Changing permissions to root:root is correct of course. 
sorry again,
-p.

[Old-Polack]

kjpetrie, you are correct, the addlocale archives permissions are the culprit here, sorry, all my fault and being fixed right now, quite embarrassing ...    Changing permissions to root:root is correct of course. 
sorry again,
-p.

Bless you pinoc... I was beginning to think only I did dumb stuff like that.

[marian]

So which folder's and/or file's permissions are needed to be changed to root:root?
I suppose / should be but what about the others. The whole /usr ?

[kjpetrie]

Everything in /usr/share/locale, and its parents, including /.

Thanks, pinoc. I'll look out for the new build.

[marian]

Everything in /usr/share/locale, and its parents, including /.

Thanks, pinoc. I'll look out for the new build.

Thanks 

[pinoc]

ok, new addlocale archives with correct permissions are uploaded.
Just to clarify: the permission problem was not related to the addlocale script itself but instead to the setup of the addlocale language archives (done with a separate script on my workstation) which are then downloaded by the addlocale script.
Now if
a) you have wrong permissions due to a previous addlocale run: to fix the wrong permissions either follow the steps outlined by kjpetrie or simply run addlocale again for the localization you choose before..
b) you never ran addlocale: you can now use addlocale and should not get any weird permission settings.

thanks kjpetrie for finding this bug, and sorry for the inconvenience,
regards,
-p.

[Bald Brick]

  A most amusing bug. I found that everything else on my system (including /usr/share/locale) had the right owner and group -- except / itself, which was owned by 502 with "games" as group. I'm contemplating keeping it that way. It would make my system different, and as everything under / is OK it won't interfere with how the system runs ...
 

[kjpetrie]

Unless msec is right in suggesting the system will treat this as "nobody". It wouldn't be good from a security viewpoint to have the top of the tree owned by such an unprivileged user.

However, I suspect the msec message is wrong and this lost node really is unowned rather than belonging to nobody. Nobody isn't just anybody, you know.

Of course, if you ever create a third normal user, they will be able to delete and replace major parts of the system tree, since ownership of / enables them to delete and create /etc, /bin, /boot (where the kernel lives) and so on. That could cause you more fun than you bargain for.

[Bald Brick]

That could cause you more fun than you bargain for.

You are right of course. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek that I wrote my post, and I probably shouldn't have as somebody might have taken it seriously.

(But the idea of a system with a nonexistent user owning the root directory ... is funny. Or at least amusing. And I find the thought that I actually used such a system for a week without noticing absolutely hilarious.... Nevertheless I'm glad you found the bug and even more glad that pinoc fixed it.)