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

Re: Upgrade to Bookworm, now GNOME keyring dies--no access to stored SSH key passwords



Well, it appears like most things in life this one was self inflicted.
🤬

Yesterday I was working on another project and to verify something was
occurring the 'strace' utility was recommended.  It dawned on me that
this could help me get a clue as to what was happening to the
gnome-keyring-daemon.  Using strace attached to the PID of the daemon
after a reboot showed it was getting the SIGTERM signal at exactly the
top of the hour.  What?!!

After seeing this twice this morning I recalled that I have a cron entry
to kill the 'rec' program.  This was to break up audio files into hourly
segments when recording an amateur radio event.  This was the cron
command:

# Rotate sound recorder files
00 * * * * /usr/bin/pkill -f rec > /dev/null 2> /dev/null

On a hunch I commented that line and Voila! the daemon ran through the
next hour change and is still running as expected.  The man page states
that the '-f' option matches against the full command line, not just the
process name.  So, looking at the gnome-keyring-daemon command line:

   1857 ?        SLsl   0:00 /usr/bin/gnome-keyring-daemon --foreground --components=pkcs11,secrets --control-directory=/run/user/1000/keyring

I see that the 'rec' in 'directory' provided the match!  Confirmed with
pgrep:

$ pgrep -f rec
1857

It looks like the solution for the future will be to change the cron
line to:

00 * * * * /usr/bin/pkill -f /usr/bin/rec > /dev/null 2> /dev/null

When I want to use it next in order to protect other processes.

I certainly hope this is resolved.  OTOH, it forced me to recall a
number of passwords!  🤣

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: