The "suspicious" errors don't give sufficient information

Bug #622179 reported by Ralph Corderoy
20
This bug affects 3 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
xorg (Debian)
New
Unknown
xorg (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: xorg

Package xorg, version 1:7.5+5ubuntu1 on 10.04 is leaving error messages
in log files, e.g.

    X: /tmp/.X11-unix has suspicious mode (not 1777) or is not a directory, aborting.

They're from debian/local/xserver-wrapper.c.

    if ((statbuf.st_uid != 0) || (statbuf.st_gid != 0)) {
      (void) fprintf(stderr, "X: %s has suspicious ownership (not root:root), "
                     "aborting.\n", X_SOCKET_DIR);
      exit(1);
    }

    if (statbuf.st_mode != (S_IFDIR | X_SOCKET_DIR_MODE)) {
      (void) fprintf(stderr, "X: %s has suspicious mode (not %o) or is not a "
                     "directory, aborting.\n", X_SOCKET_DIR, X_SOCKET_DIR_MODE);
      exit(1);
    }

In both cases it would help a lot, given the number of times these
errors appear on Google, if the message included what the unexpected
value(s) were, e.g.

    X: /tmp/.X11-unix has suspicious mode, 01755 is not 01777, aborting.
    X: /tmp/.X11-unix has suspicious ownership, 1000:0 is not 0:0, aborting.

(If the `%o' were `%#o' too then the error would make clear the numbers are
octal.)

Revision history for this message
Bryce Harrington (bryce) wrote :

Hi Ralph,

        Please attach the output of `lspci -vvnn` too.

    [This is an automated message. Apologies if it has reached you inappropriately; please just reply to this message indicating so.]

tags: added: needs-xorglog
tags: added: needs-lspci-vvnn
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

No log files or PCI listing required as I'm pointing out a clear, easily confirmable, problem with the source code.

tags: removed: needs-lspci-vvnn needs-xorglog
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
Bryce Harrington (bryce)
tags: added: needs-xorglog
tags: added: needs-lspci-vvnn
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Bryce, can you stop your automatic thing adding tags and making this bug Incomplete? Or explain why they're needed. Thanks.

tags: removed: needs-lspci-vvnn needs-xorglog
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
Revision history for this message
Strby (m-strbacka) wrote :

From yesterday I have this problem too. In /etc/init.d/x11-common is this:
SOCKET_DIR=/tmp/.X11-unix
...
set_up_socket_dir () {
  if [ "$VERBOSE" != no ]; then
    log_begin_msg "Setting up X server socket directory $SOCKET_DIR..."
  fi
  if [ -e $SOCKET_DIR ] && [ ! -d $SOCKET_DIR ]; then
    mv $SOCKET_DIR $SOCKET_DIR.$$
  fi
  mkdir -p $SOCKET_DIR
  chown root:root $SOCKET_DIR
  chmod 1777 $SOCKET_DIR
  do_restorecon $SOCKET_DIR
  [ "$VERBOSE" != no ] && log_end_msg 0 || return 0
}
but everytime when I reboot my notebook, the directory is created with mode 3777, sudo chmod 1777 /tmp/.X11-unix didn't change anything. But sudo chmod -s /tmp/.X11-unix successfuly changed the mode to 1777

Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Strby, I sympathise, our LUG has a user that sees this error only every few boots rather than consistently, but this is not the correct bug to try and get your problem fixed. This is only about improving the error message when it occurs, not investigating causes of the error occurring. However, you're correct, the problem lies with the 1777. I'll raise another bug for that and report that number here for you and others that follow.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Strby, bug #623294 covers your issue of setgid not be cleared by 1777.

Bryce Harrington (bryce)
tags: added: needs-xorglog
tags: added: needs-lspci-vvnn
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Bryce. This is rapidly losing its charm. What do I have to do to stop your bot from making this change over and over. Can it not see it has already done it and been rebutted? Is there some do-not-dare-make-that-change,-bot tag I need add?

tags: removed: needs-lspci-vvnn needs-xorglog
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
tags: added: omit
Bryce Harrington (bryce)
tags: added: needs-xorglog
tags: added: needs-lspci-vvnn
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Bryce said "add the tag 'omit' and that will make it stop making automated changes to your bug" so I did. But the evil, rampaging, bot continues to wage war.

tags: removed: needs-lspci-vvnn needs-xorglog
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
Bryce Harrington (bryce)
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
status: New → Triaged
Bryce Harrington (bryce)
Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Low
Revision history for this message
Christopher M. Peñalver (penalvch) wrote :

Ralph Corderoy, as the xorg stack syncs with upstream, there is no compelling reason to deviate from them on this. If this is repeatable on xorg trunk, please feel free to file a bug upstream via https://bugs.freedesktop.org/ .

Changed in xorg (Ubuntu):
importance: Low → Wishlist
status: Triaged → Won't Fix
Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Hi Christopher, as I stated "They're from debian/local/xserver-wrapper.c" so is freedesktop.org relevant?
If not, please restore importance and status. Thanks.

Revision history for this message
Christopher M. Peñalver (penalvch) wrote :

Ralph Corderoy, thank you for your comments. I've subscribed Julien Cristau who has submitted work to Debian in the debian/local/xserver-wrapper.c area within the last few years.

Julian Cristau, could you please provide your perspective on this?

Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Hi Christopher, it's been about six weeks and Julien Cristau hasn't responded.
Please restore Bryce's settings of status and importance as
this isn't a freedesktop issue AFAICS.

Revision history for this message
Ralph Corderoy (ralph-inputplus) wrote :

Hi Christopher, another six weeks have passed and this bug still hasn't had its correct status and importance settings restored. As you changed them, wrongly, it would seem a matter of taking pride in your work that you restore them to Bryce's settings. Or at least reply to my requests with your argument as to why not. No, this is not an April Fool's. :-)

Revision history for this message
Christopher M. Peñalver (penalvch) wrote :

Ralph Corderoy, as this is requesting a fundamental change as per the Bug Description, the fix would want to come from upstream, whether Debian and/or X.Org, and then synch'ed into Ubuntu, not the reverse. Hence, Won't Fix Wishlist is the appropriate Status and Importance respectively. For more on this, please see:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance

Revision history for this message
Julien Cristau (jcristau) wrote : Re: [Bug 622179] Re: The "suspicious" errors don't give sufficient information

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:59:49 -0000, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:

> Ralph Corderoy, as this is requesting a fundamental change as per the Bug Description, the fix would want to come from upstream, whether Debian and/or X.Org, and then synch'ed into Ubuntu, not the reverse. Hence, Won't Fix Wishlist is the appropriate Status and Importance respectively. For more on this, please see:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance
>
The above is wrong. This is about a Debian-specific file, not something
inherited from upstream.

Revision history for this message
Christopher M. Peñalver (penalvch) wrote :

Julien Cristau, Debian in this case would be Ubuntu's upstream. Are you suggesting Ubuntu deviate from Debian's bits here in this case?

Revision history for this message
Julien Cristau (jcristau) wrote :

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:32:23 -0000, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:

> Julien Cristau, Debian in this case would be Ubuntu's upstream. Are you
> suggesting Ubuntu deviate from Debian's bits here in this case?
>
I'm suggesting if there's something to fix you fix it and send the fix
on upstream.

Revision history for this message
Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e) wrote :

This is a technical decision concerning Debian itself, and Ubuntu cannot decide on that. Sorry.

Changed in xorg (Debian):
status: Unknown → New
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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