[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#42907: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL] Policy should mention permissions of /dev/[dsp,audio,mixer])

Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <20010613181654.719444714@speedy.private>
and subject line Bug #42907: Policy should mention permissions of /dev/[dsp,audio,mixer]
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Aug 1999 21:46:41 +0000
Received: (qmail 28202 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1999 21:46:40 -0000
Received: from ttt.xray.mpe.mpg.de (mail@
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 1999 21:46:40 -0000
Received: from ach by ttt.xray.mpe.mpg.de with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian))
	id 11F2lL-0000aG-00; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:51:51 +0200
From: Achim Bohnet <ach@mpe.mpg.de>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: *wav* executable are not setgid audio.
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.21
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:51:51 +0200
Message-Id: <E11F2lL-0000aG-00@ttt.xray.mpe.mpg.de>
Sender: Achim Bohnet <ach@ttt.xray.mpe.mpg.de>

Package: wavtools
Version: 1.3.2-1
Severity: important

Only root, and users of the audio group can use the binaries:

ttt:/etc# l  /dev/dsp*
crw-rw----   1 root     audio     14,   3 Aug 10 20:25 /dev/dsp
crw-rw----   1 root     audio     14,  19 Aug 10 20:25 /dev/dsp1
ttt:/etc# l /usr/bin/*wav*
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root        32260 Nov 29  1998 /usr/bin/gwavp
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root        39960 Nov 29  1998 /usr/bin/gwavr
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root         4640 Nov 29  1998 /usr/bin/wavp
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root         6424 Nov 29  1998 /usr/bin/wavr
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root         3331 Nov 29  1998 /usr/bin/xwavr


-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux ttt 2.2.10 #2 Wed Jun 16 00:23:31 EST 1999 i586

Versions of packages wavtools depends on:
ii  libc6                        2.1.2-0pre7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  wavtools                     1.3.2-1     WAV play, record, and compression 

Received: (at 42907-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:16:59 +0000
>From steveg@molehole.dyndns.org Wed Jun 13 13:16:59 2001
Return-path: <steveg@molehole.dyndns.org>
Received: from (speedy.private) [::ffff:] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 15AFCM-0003Up-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:58 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 719444714; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: 42907-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug #42907: Policy should mention permissions of /dev/[dsp,audio,mixer]
Message-Id: <20010613181654.719444714@speedy.private>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: steveg@molehole.dyndns.org (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: 42907-done@bugs.debian.org

This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to bug#@bugs.debian.org, not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead

Bug #42907: Policy should mention permissions of /dev/[dsp,audio,mixer]

Summary: Original bug report was claim that various sound tools should
be sgid audio. Maintainer correctly noted the reasons for the devices
being writable only group audio, and that making the binary sgid audio
would defeat that purpose. Re-assigned to Policy with the idea that
those reasons should be mentioned in policy.

Discussion: I don't think this is a policy issue at all. Various
device permissions are set for various reasons, and I don't think we
want or need to justify them in policy. 

Action: close

Reply to: