[saucy] software-properties-gtk crashed with Exception NameHasNoOwner: Could not get owner of name 'com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties'

Bug #1191700 reported by B Bobo
22
This bug affects 4 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
software-properties (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

software-properties-gtk is crashing every time it is run with Exception NameHasNoOwner: Could not get owner of name 'com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties'

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/software-properties-gtk", line 104, in <module>
   app = SoftwarePropertiesGtk(datadir=options.data_dir, options=options, file=file)
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/dbus/bus.py, line 175, in activate_name_owner
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/dbus/bus.py, line 361, in get_name_owner
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/dbus/connection.py, line 651, in call_blocking

dbus.exceptions.DBusException: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NameHasNoOwner: Could not get owner of name 'com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties': no such name

This is software-properties-gtk-0.92.19 in Ubuntu 13.04 Saucy

This issue is preventing any further software updates using either the Ubuntu Software Center or apt itself directly.

Tags: saucy
Revision history for this message
B Bobo (yout-bobo123) wrote :

Every time software-properties-gtk runs, there is also this popup error message:

Failed to apply network settings

org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.Spawn.PermissionsInvalid:
The permission of the setuid helper is not correct

You might not be able to connect to the Bluetooth network via this machine

Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

> This issue is preventing any further software updates using
> either the Ubuntu Software Center or apt itself directly.

software-properties-gtk is the UI for configuring software sources, and is not used as part of applying updates. What exactly is the issue you're seeing when trying to apply updates with apt / USC?

tags: removed: regression-update
Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

> dbus.exceptions.DBusException: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NameHasNoOwner:
> Could not get owner of name 'com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties': no such name

Note that this service is provided by /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services/com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties.service, which is part of the software-properties-common package, which is a dependency of software-properties-gtk.

Revision history for this message
B Bobo (yout-bobo123) wrote :

The error message appears when one of the Ubuntu update programs runs automatically shortly after GUI login. The error message also appears when I try to run USC manually, and USC crashes. Soon the whole desktop crashes too.

This all started after applying saucy updates dated 2013-06-14.

Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

Is /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services/com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties.service present on your system? This sounds like a corrupted install.

Revision history for this message
B Bobo (yout-bobo123) wrote :

This system has been working fine with no errors at all for several months since the original installation of Saucy.
The problems started suddenly on the 14th after applying the set of saucy updates dated 2013-06-14. There are no hardware errors.

It's a bit worrying if updating a system can corrupt it. The updates were all signed and signatures verified by USC. Perhaps Debian or Ubuntu signing keys have been compromised again.

The file you mentioned exists, is world-readable, though not executable, and is identical to the one on a different Ubuntu system.

Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote : Re: [Bug 1191700] Re: [saucy] software-properties-gtk crashed with Exception NameHasNoOwner: Could not get owner of name 'com.ubuntu.SoftwareProperties'

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 04:43:20PM -0000, B Bobo wrote:
> It's a bit worrying if updating a system can corrupt it.

The corruption would not have been caused by the updates, it would only have
/happened/ to coincide with those updates.

> The updates were all signed and signatures verified by USC. Perhaps
> Debian or Ubuntu signing keys have been compromised again.

There has never been any such compromise, I don't know why you're suggesting
there has.

> The file you mentioned exists, is world-readable, though not executable,
> and is identical to the one on a different Ubuntu system.

Ok, then this doesn't point to corruption. However, it remains that this
issue is completely unreproducible on a stock saucy install, and for the
vast majority of our users. I'm afraid I don't have any idea what would be
causing this error for you if there aren't corrupt or missing files.

Revision history for this message
B Bobo (yout-bobo123) wrote :

Ok. Thank you for your suggestions. You mentioned you couldn't reproduce it on a stock saucy install. However, it wasn't on a stock saucy install; it was stock with all updates applied. I'm not ruling out the possibility of corruption as I'm seeing lots of seg.faults in Unity and compiz #1192509.

> There has never been any such compromise, I don't know why you're suggesting there has.

One historic instance was with Debian and Ubuntu signing keys being trivially compromisable, although the issue has long been fixed under certain interpretations. I remember Debian and Ubuntu (and others) have had many similarly incredible security issues in the past, and by extension, it is extremely likely they (and others) have similarly incredible new issues now. One current instance is a severe undisclosable issue with openssl.

Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Jos Geluk (t-jos) wrote :

This bug still occurs repeatably in Vivid. The traceback at the top of this bug report is still accurate, including line numbers.

Revision history for this message
masand (markus-sand) wrote :

This bug still occurs repeatably in Wily. The lines number of the traceback are a little bit different now.
They match to bug #1521305 now. (which is most likely a duplicate of this)

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.