Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:17:41AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Mi, 09 dec 20, 15:23:44, Celejar wrote: I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance is as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? The ntfs-3g developers claim there is no significant penalty. Testing their claims would be difficult though, considering the kernel driver has limited functionality. For exfat, at least, the in-kernel driver is noticeably faster. From a reasonably fast drive I can get 600-700MByte/s with the kernel driver, and 400-500MByte/s with fuse. With a slower drive I can get about 260MByte/s with kernel, 220MByte/s with fuse. Whether the difference is "significant" probably depends on how much data you're transferring and how long you're willing to wait. In the past I've seen much larger differences for actual applications. I don't know if the fuse module has gotten faster or my quick copy test above doesn't adequately reflect real world performance. YMMV.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
> been implemented by the components in Debian Bullseye. Does seem a > little perverse though if it should be implemented just after Linux > gains an exFAT kernel driver, a filesystem that only really exists for > interoperability between devices (i.e. those that will be removable > media). FWIW, the use of exFAT for filesystems which will basically never be disconnected is very common in Android devices. Stefan
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:17:41 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 09 dec 20, 15:23:44, Celejar wrote: > > > > I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance is > > as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance > > penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? > > The ntfs-3g developers claim there is no significant penalty. Testing > their claims would be difficult though, considering the kernel driver > has limited functionality. I'm certainly not going to dispute the ntfs-3g developers, but I had had in mind these comments of Linus Torvald that I had just come across: "People who think that userspace filesystems are realistic for anything but toys are just misguided. fuse works fine if the thing being exported is some random low-use interface to a fundamentally slow device. But for something like your root filesystem? Nope. Not going to happen." https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/9/462 Linus sometimes exaggerates, and in any event, external USB storage devices are (generally) somewhere in between "your root filesystem" and "some random low-use ..." A quick search turns up this: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast17/fast17-vangoor.pdf which I haven't had a chance to read. Celejar
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:12:50AM +, Tixy wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 10:56 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > I think the tencency is to mount untrusted file systems over FUSE, [...] > > due to the realisation that file system code wasn't designed with > > malicious file system images in mind (remember? the time that code > > got written, you had one hard disk firmly screwed into your beige > > box computer), and on the hope that something exploding in user > > space might be less devastating that having it explode in kernel > > space... > > I can see there is good reasoning in that, perhaps that reasoning has > been implemented by the components in Debian Bullseye. Does seem a > little perverse though if it should be implemented just after Linux > gains an exFAT kernel driver, a filesystem that only really exists for > interoperability between devices (i.e. those that will be removable > media). I'd think exFAT lands as well in libguestfs, where it can be used by FUSE. Code is, after all, code ;-) Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 08:15:05PM +1100, David wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 19:35, Joe wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:26:40 + Tixy wrote: > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'Linux partitions'. > > > Partitions containing Linux filesystems. That's what we are talking about, yes. > I understand a 'Linux partition' to be one that has a > partition ID = 83h as discussed here: My understanding is ye olde partition type ID numbers are basically irrelevant comments at this point. You can set them so that you see a nice human-readable type name when you run "fdisk -l" or the equivalent, but it's not actually used for anything. You could have a Linux ext4 file system on a partition that's marked as type "Microsoft basic data" or anything else.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 10:56 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:00:39AM +, Tixy wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 08:53 +, Tixy wrote: > > > Perhaps your USB stick is formatted with exFAT (which only gained > > > kernel support this year) and me and Celejar are using older > > > FAT/VFAT/FAT32 (I am). That would explain our different > > > experiences > > > with fuse getting involved. > > > > I just saw from you other replies that you're on Debian unstable, > > so > > your kernel does have exFAT support. There must be something more > > complicated going on then for your system to chose to use fuse to > > mount > > the USB stick. > > I think the tencency is to mount untrusted file systems over FUSE, > due to the realisation that file system code wasn't designed with > malicious file system images in mind (remember? the time that code > got written, you had one hard disk firmly screwed into your beige > box computer), and on the hope that something exploding in user > space might be less devastating that having it explode in kernel > space... I can see there is good reasoning in that, perhaps that reasoning has been implemented by the components in Debian Bullseye. Does seem a little perverse though if it should be implemented just after Linux gains an exFAT kernel driver, a filesystem that only really exists for interoperability between devices (i.e. those that will be removable media). -- Tixy
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:00:39AM +, Tixy wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 08:53 +, Tixy wrote: > > Perhaps your USB stick is formatted with exFAT (which only gained > > kernel support this year) and me and Celejar are using older > > FAT/VFAT/FAT32 (I am). That would explain our different experiences > > with fuse getting involved. > > I just saw from you other replies that you're on Debian unstable, so > your kernel does have exFAT support. There must be something more > complicated going on then for your system to chose to use fuse to mount > the USB stick. I think the tencency is to mount untrusted file systems over FUSE, due to the realisation that file system code wasn't designed with malicious file system images in mind (remember? the time that code got written, you had one hard disk firmly screwed into your beige box computer), and on the hope that something exploding in user space might be less devastating that having it explode in kernel space... For a rough impression, cf. e.g. here [1] It's a timid first step to remove one of those skeletons from beneath the bed (or a move towards a microkernel, depending on your current mood ;-) Cheers [1] https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20180523234114.ga3...@thunk.org/ - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 19:35, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:26:40 + Tixy wrote: > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'Linux partitions'. > Partitions containing Linux filesystems. I understand a 'Linux partition' to be one that has a partition ID = 83h as discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type#PID_83h
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem [solved]
On Mi, 09 dec 20, 19:47:14, Joe wrote: > > I believe a mount point will always be owned by root, regardless of the > permissions of the underlying directory, Nitpick: in the relevant documentation a "mount point" is the underlying directory. You're probably referring to the filesystem's root directory. Its permissions are managed the same as any other directory for "native" filesystems (ext*, xfs, etc.) and via mount options for FAT and NTFS. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 08:53 +, Tixy wrote: > Perhaps your USB stick is formatted with exFAT (which only gained > kernel support this year) and me and Celejar are using older > FAT/VFAT/FAT32 (I am). That would explain our different experiences > with fuse getting involved. I just saw from you other replies that you're on Debian unstable, so your kernel does have exFAT support. There must be something more complicated going on then for your system to chose to use fuse to mount the USB stick. -- Tixy
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 08:35 +, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:26:40 + > Tixy wrote: > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'Linux partitions'. > > Partitions containing Linux filesystems. OK, I guess you really meant filesystems supported by the Linux kernel, because we're all talking about FAT here which certainly isn't a Linux filesystems ;-) Perhaps your USB stick is formatted with exFAT (which only gained kernel support this year) and me and Celejar are using older FAT/VFAT/FAT32 (I am). That would explain our different experiences with fuse getting involved. -- Tixy
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:26:40 + Tixy wrote: > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'Linux partitions'. Partitions containing Linux filesystems. -- Joe
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 20:34 +, Joe wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:23:44 -0500 > Celejar wrote: > [...] > > Interesting. I haven't been using automounting, but I just enabled > > Xfce's native automounting (Thunar / Edit / Preferences / Advanced > > / > > Volume Management:Configure / Mount removable drives when hot- > > plugged) > > and stuck in a flash drive. It gets mounted and I don't see any > > FUSE > > involved: > > > > ~$ mount | grep sdb > > /dev/sdb on /media//disk type vfat > > (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,c > > odepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,err > > ors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2) > > > > ~$ mount | grep fuse > > fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl > > (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) portal on /run/user/1000/doc type > > fuse.portal (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=1000) > > > > I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE > > performance > > is as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance > > penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? > > > > With a quick trial, it depends on the filesystem. Many of my USB > sticks > are FAT for portability, but they get mounted as fuseblk rather than > fat or vfat. How are you mounting them? On Buster with LXDE desktop, USB sticks with FAT filesystems don't get mounted by the GUI using fuse. I.e. my experience matches Celejar's. > Linux partitions are indeed mounted natively. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'Linux partitions'. The only two partitioning schemes I'm aware of are MBR and GPT neither of which are Linux specific. And I can't see how the partitioning scheme would affect how a FAT filesystem is mounted. -- Tixy
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Mi, 09 dec 20, 19:10:42, Joe wrote: > > I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but when I have casually checked > what is mounted, I see that any USB sticks plugged in are on fuse. Xfce > on sid, no usbmount, automounting done by systemd, by the way. That is likely to happen for NTFS, because the kernel driver has no (or very limited?) write support. For other filesystems the burden of proof is on you :) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Mi, 09 dec 20, 15:23:44, Celejar wrote: > > I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance is > as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance > penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? The ntfs-3g developers claim there is no significant penalty. Testing their claims would be difficult though, considering the kernel driver has limited functionality. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:35:16PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 3:28 PM wrote: > > > ... > > > > > Instead I took it as a criticism of background processes in our society > > and > > > economy: mass-marketing and lack-of-choice (ineffective but enforced > > > product buy-in, in this case). > > > > We are in violent agreement, then :) > > > > I just noticed that I called them "background processes" :-) > You see, computing is a slowly-progressing disease :-) > > Wouldn't it be more accurate to call those "Ring 0" processes or some such? > Just a thought. > What would Herr Doktor Karl Marx say? Dialectical processes, I guess ;-P (Ok, ok, I'll stop now). Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 3:28 PM wrote: > ... > > Instead I took it as a criticism of background processes in our society > and > > economy: mass-marketing and lack-of-choice (ineffective but enforced > > product buy-in, in this case). > > We are in violent agreement, then :) > I just noticed that I called them "background processes" :-) You see, computing is a slowly-progressing disease :-) Wouldn't it be more accurate to call those "Ring 0" processes or some such? Just a thought. What would Herr Doktor Karl Marx say? :-D Cheers > - t >
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:14:51PM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 5:12 AM wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:46AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > > > > deloptes wrote: > > > > > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. > > > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > Your life would be miserable weren't it for many such "dreamers". > > > > > > The problem i see is that the companies which issue questionable > > > equipment obviously are not paying attention to problems and features > > > of what they sell. > > > > Definitely: everyone should pick her/his fights. I was just expressing > > my (strong) disagreement with such a generalised statement, which doesn't > > pay respect to those who sometimes choose the difficult path, to the > > benefit of us all. > > > > I did not take the original statement to disrespect those who contribute. I did not imply that (nor did I for deloptes, to whom I was responding). I just wanted to point out that we might regard such folks as "dreamers", but we actually need dreamers. > Instead I took it as a criticism of background processes in our society and > economy: mass-marketing and lack-of-choice (ineffective but enforced > product buy-in, in this case). We are in violent agreement, then :) Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, 5:12 AM wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:46AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > > deloptes wrote: > > > > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. > > > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Your life would be miserable weren't it for many such "dreamers". > > > > The problem i see is that the companies which issue questionable > > equipment obviously are not paying attention to problems and features > > of what they sell. > > Definitely: everyone should pick her/his fights. I was just expressing > my (strong) disagreement with such a generalised statement, which doesn't > pay respect to those who sometimes choose the difficult path, to the > benefit of us all. > I did not take the original statement to disrespect those who contribute. Instead I took it as a criticism of background processes in our society and economy: mass-marketing and lack-of-choice (ineffective but enforced product buy-in, in this case). Cheers > - t >
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:23:44 -0500 Celejar wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:10:42 + > Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:35:57 -0500 > > Celejar wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:39:35 -0800 > > > David Christensen wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume > > > > that you plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you > > > > interacted with the icon, and the drive was mounted at > > > > /media/usb0. If so, AIUI the various Debian desktops with > > > > automounting use FUSE. The user account running > > > > > > They do? Do you have documentation of this? I can't find anything > > > about this in the documentation of, say, Xfce4's thunar-volman: > > > > > > https://docs.xfce.org/xfce/thunar/using-removable-media > > > > > > > the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls > > > > that are supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all > > > > other user accounts, including the root account (!), are denied > > > > access to the filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. > > > > See mount.fuse(8). > > > > > > > I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but when I have casually > > checked what is mounted, I see that any USB sticks plugged in are > > on fuse. Xfce on sid, no usbmount, automounting done by systemd, by > > the way. > > Interesting. I haven't been using automounting, but I just enabled > Xfce's native automounting (Thunar / Edit / Preferences / Advanced / > Volume Management:Configure / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged) > and stuck in a flash drive. It gets mounted and I don't see any FUSE > involved: > > ~$ mount | grep sdb > /dev/sdb on /media//disk type vfat > (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,errors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2) > > ~$ mount | grep fuse > fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl > (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) portal on /run/user/1000/doc type > fuse.portal (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=1000) > > I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance > is as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance > penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? > With a quick trial, it depends on the filesystem. Many of my USB sticks are FAT for portability, but they get mounted as fuseblk rather than fat or vfat. Linux partitions are indeed mounted natively. -- Joe
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem [solved]
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:47:14PM +, Joe wrote: > I believe a mount point will always be owned by root, regardless of the > permissions of the underlying directory, because only root is allowed > to mount things. unicorn:~$ mkdir mtpt unicorn:~$ ls -ld mtpt drwxr-xr-x 2 greg greg 4096 Dec 9 15:22 mtpt/ unicorn:~$ sshfs remote: mtpt unicorn:~$ ls -ld mtpt drwxr-xr-x 1 greg greg 4096 Dec 6 23:09 mtpt/ FUSE changes a few things.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:10:42 + Joe wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:35:57 -0500 > Celejar wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:39:35 -0800 > > David Christensen wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume > > > that you plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you > > > interacted with the icon, and the drive was mounted at /media/usb0. > > > If so, AIUI the various Debian desktops with automounting use > > > FUSE. The user account running > > > > They do? Do you have documentation of this? I can't find anything > > about this in the documentation of, say, Xfce4's thunar-volman: > > > > https://docs.xfce.org/xfce/thunar/using-removable-media > > > > > the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls that > > > are supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all other user > > > accounts, including the root account (!), are denied access to the > > > filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. See > > > mount.fuse(8). > > > > I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but when I have casually checked > what is mounted, I see that any USB sticks plugged in are on fuse. Xfce > on sid, no usbmount, automounting done by systemd, by the way. Interesting. I haven't been using automounting, but I just enabled Xfce's native automounting (Thunar / Edit / Preferences / Advanced / Volume Management:Configure / Mount removable drives when hot-plugged) and stuck in a flash drive. It gets mounted and I don't see any FUSE involved: ~$ mount | grep sdb /dev/sdb on /media//disk type vfat (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,showexec,utf8,flush,errors=remount-ro,uhelper=udisks2) ~$ mount | grep fuse fusectl on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime) portal on /run/user/1000/doc type fuse.portal (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,user_id=1000,group_id=1000) I'm curious about this because I can't imagine that FUSE performance is as good as native, so why would automounters pay the performance penalty of FUSE when native mounting would seem easy enough to do? Celejar
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem [solved]
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:22:28 -0700 Fred wrote: > When I was denied permission to write a file to the device as a > regular user I checked the permissions and then discovered root could > not change them. Being a hardware oriented person I was concerned > the SecureAccess software needed to change a write protect bit in the > device and decided to ask for help. I should have tried writing to > the device as root but being very busy I didn't. It is writable by > root and anyone can read it so there is no problem. I believe a mount point will always be owned by root, regardless of the permissions of the underlying directory, because only root is allowed to mount things. The device mounted on the mount point will normally be owned by the logged-in user, unless /etc/fstab contains instructions to the contrary. A device mounted while no user is logged in will be owned by root (again, subject to fstab), something that usually happens if an external drive has been left attached after shutting down. It's generally a bad idea to boot with an external medium attached, unless it's bootable and you explicitly want to boot it. If it isn't bootable, it will either be mounted as root (which may not prevent other users writing to it) or the BIOS may hang. -- Joe
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem [solved]
On 12/8/20 9:39 PM, David Christensen wrote: On 2020-12-08 07:29, Fred wrote: Hello, I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus infested, scourge of the Earth software. fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l total 8416 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ I have many SanDisk USB flash drives, including several Cruzer Glide. They typically have an MBR partition scheme and one large VFAT or NTFS partition. "SanDisk Secure Access" is optional Windows encryption software that is bundled with SanDisk USB flash drives. Use it, ignore it, or delete it as you please; the software is not required to use the drive on any computer that supports the factory partitioning scheme and filesystem. When I was denied permission to write a file to the device as a regular user I checked the permissions and then discovered root could not change them. Being a hardware oriented person I was concerned the SecureAccess software needed to change a write protect bit in the device and decided to ask for help. I should have tried writing to the device as root but being very busy I didn't. It is writable by root and anyone can read it so there is no problem. root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted Attempts to add write permission are also denied. As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume that you plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you interacted with the icon, and the drive was mounted at /media/usb0. If so, AIUI the various Debian desktops with automounting use FUSE. The user account running the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls that are supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all other user accounts, including the root account (!), are denied access to the filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. See mount.fuse(8). I do not use a DE. Just openbox and xterm/command line. Something automagically mounts USB devices. Fuse is installed so maybe that is it. Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? If you want to use the flash drive to move files between DOS, Windows, Linux, macOS, BSD, etc., leave the factory partitioning scheme and filesystem intact. Use the desktop to mount and unmount the filesystem on the flash drive. Use the file manager or a normal, non-root, terminal to delete or move aside the "Secure Access" stuff. If you want to use the drive for some other purpose, such as burning a Debian Installer ISO image onto it, do not mount the drive using the desktop. (You may have to disable the desktop automounting feature). Instead, open a terminal and use sudo(8) or su(1) to work with the drive. David Thanks for the help. Best regards, Fred
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:35:57 -0500 Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:39:35 -0800 > David Christensen wrote: > > ... > > > As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume > > that you plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you > > interacted with the icon, and the drive was mounted at /media/usb0. > > If so, AIUI the various Debian desktops with automounting use > > FUSE. The user account running > > They do? Do you have documentation of this? I can't find anything > about this in the documentation of, say, Xfce4's thunar-volman: > > https://docs.xfce.org/xfce/thunar/using-removable-media > > > the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls that > > are supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all other user > > accounts, including the root account (!), are denied access to the > > filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. See > > mount.fuse(8). > I haven't investigated it thoroughly, but when I have casually checked what is mounted, I see that any USB sticks plugged in are on fuse. Xfce on sid, no usbmount, automounting done by systemd, by the way. -- Joe
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:39:35 -0800 David Christensen wrote: ... > As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume that you > plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you interacted with the > icon, and the drive was mounted at /media/usb0. If so, AIUI the various > Debian desktops with automounting use FUSE. The user account running They do? Do you have documentation of this? I can't find anything about this in the documentation of, say, Xfce4's thunar-volman: https://docs.xfce.org/xfce/thunar/using-removable-media > the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls that are > supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all other user > accounts, including the root account (!), are denied access to the > filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. See mount.fuse(8). Celejar
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:46AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > > > > companies will keep bringing them to the market. > > deloptes wrote: > > > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Your life would be miserable weren't it for many such "dreamers". > > The problem i see is that the companies which issue questionable > equipment obviously are not paying attention to problems and features > of what they sell. Definitely: everyone should pick her/his fights. I was just expressing my (strong) disagreement with such a generalised statement, which doesn't pay respect to those who sometimes choose the difficult path, to the benefit of us all. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Ma, 08 dec 20, 20:39:35, David Christensen wrote: > > If you want to use the drive for some other purpose, such as burning a > Debian Installer ISO image onto it, do not mount the drive using the > desktop. (You may have to disable the desktop automounting feature). > Instead, open a terminal and use sudo(8) or su(1) to work with the drive. Or just eject / unmount / safe remove / etc. it before "burning" the image file to it. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Fred writes: >> If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the >> companies will keep bringing them to the market. >> Stefan >> > I agree but taking something that doesn't work back to Walmart or > other large company won't inform the manufacturer about the problem. > Walmart is going to throw it in the trash. May be or may be not. We can't say. But every deviation from the normal process is a big hassle for everyone in the supplychain. Imagine driving in the wrong direction. Everyone feels the pain.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Hi, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > > > companies will keep bringing them to the market. deloptes wrote: > > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Your life would be miserable weren't it for many such "dreamers". The problem i see is that the companies which issue questionable equipment obviously are not paying attention to problems and features of what they sell. Look at the example of my 4 TB Western Digital Gold hard disk with its Preemptive Wear Leveling click every 4 seconds. It is a feature, it is indirectly advertised, and still the seller takes such a disk back and hands out a new one with the same behavior. They simply are ignorant to any problem description which accompanies a sent-back drive. I did not try whether they would do a second swap. My solution was to get a noise dampened 5.25 inch enclosure for the 3.5 inch disk and to put it into a slot which i actually planned to keep clear for better access to the lower of the two optical drives. (I did not dare to put the HDD in a sandwich of two burners. Now at least its bottom is in the flow of cool air.) Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:13:38PM +0100, deloptes wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > > companies will keep bringing them to the market. > > > > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. Your life would be miserable weren't it for many such "dreamers". Mine too. That's why I give them due respect and do my best to "dream" a little from time to time. In the hope to make your, my, and other people's lives a tad better. Dream on! Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
James H. H. Lampert wrote: > Hmm. When I put a new flash device into service, at the very least, I > wipe all bundled content from it, and may completely reformat it, > depending on my needs, just as a matter of course. I was buying recently many (about 10 SanDisk drives in the past 2-3y). All of them come the same with the EXE and doc files on top. Linux formatted or not they all work as designed and expected. The problem OP has, might be result of: 1. wrong expectation (disk is extfat can not change permissions) 2. wrong driver in use (because usb0 indicates may be usb1 device) 3. some other unrelated issue Knowing what people do (when they have the freedom like in linux) I'm not surprised to hear any kind of problems.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On 2020-12-08 07:29, Fred wrote: Hello, I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus infested, scourge of the Earth software. fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l total 8416 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ I have many SanDisk USB flash drives, including several Cruzer Glide. They typically have an MBR partition scheme and one large VFAT or NTFS partition. "SanDisk Secure Access" is optional Windows encryption software that is bundled with SanDisk USB flash drives. Use it, ignore it, or delete it as you please; the software is not required to use the drive on any computer that supports the factory partitioning scheme and filesystem. root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted Attempts to add write permission are also denied. As you have not stated how you mounted the drive, I will assume that you plugged it in, an icon appeared on the desktop, you interacted with the icon, and the drive was mounted at /media/usb0. If so, AIUI the various Debian desktops with automounting use FUSE. The user account running the desktop and automounter will have whatever access controls that are supported by the filesystem and/or by FUSE. But all other user accounts, including the root account (!), are denied access to the filesystem. This is a security feature of FUSE. See mount.fuse(8). Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? If you want to use the flash drive to move files between DOS, Windows, Linux, macOS, BSD, etc., leave the factory partitioning scheme and filesystem intact. Use the desktop to mount and unmount the filesystem on the flash drive. Use the file manager or a normal, non-root, terminal to delete or move aside the "Secure Access" stuff. If you want to use the drive for some other purpose, such as burning a Debian Installer ISO image onto it, do not mount the drive using the desktop. (You may have to disable the desktop automounting feature). Instead, open a terminal and use sudo(8) or su(1) to work with the drive. David
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package > > says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from > > writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus > > infested, scourge of the Earth software. > > Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? > rm *worked for me as root > Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path > forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. > Be sure they have a replacement before returning it. I sent back 2 of their flash drives, different model, that were running too hot to touch. They replaced 1 then said no more available and that was a couple of months ago. Be well, Mike -- Your talent is God's gift to you. What you do with it is your gift back to God.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On 12/8/20 2:21 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Presumably the stick was bought for some purpose. If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the companies will keep bringing them to the market. Stefan I agree but taking something that doesn't work back to Walmart or other large company won't inform the manufacturer about the problem. Walmart is going to throw it in the trash. Best regards, Fred
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue 08 Dec 2020 at 17:55:41 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > >> companies will keep bringing them to the market. > > Yes, but choose your battles. > > Agreed. I was just proposing it in to remind people that there is such > a choice. > > > In this case the retailer would chuck it in the bin and ask for another > > one from the manufacturer, who would supply it without question. > > But retailers do keep track of returns and tend to prefer ordering those > products which don't get returned. It can also be an opportunity to > bring up the existence of "something else than Windows". > > E.g. when I last bought a webcam, I was fairly confident that it would > use the UVC protocol and work fine with my Debian machine, but I still > specifically asked the seller if it would work on GNU/Linux (which was > not stated on the box), not because I cared about the answer but as > a way to remind them that there are customers who care about that. I don't see the connection. If the shop guaranteed that it used one protocol and it didn't, then sure, you could take it back to the shop and, in the UK at least, you'd typically get your refund, under Fitness for Purpose. (I don't trust US laws to any great extent—is there anything like a Sale of Goods Act?) The OP's case is more like your buying, say, a kitchen pot that comes with a complimentary bottle of cook-in sauce. Unfortunately the sauce contains animal fat and you're a vegan. Too bad. You can't return the pot on that account. Cheers, David.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
>> If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the >> companies will keep bringing them to the market. > Yes, but choose your battles. Agreed. I was just proposing it in to remind people that there is such a choice. > In this case the retailer would chuck it in the bin and ask for another > one from the manufacturer, who would supply it without question. But retailers do keep track of returns and tend to prefer ordering those products which don't get returned. It can also be an opportunity to bring up the existence of "something else than Windows". E.g. when I last bought a webcam, I was fairly confident that it would use the UVC protocol and work fine with my Debian machine, but I still specifically asked the seller if it would work on GNU/Linux (which was not stated on the box), not because I cared about the answer but as a way to remind them that there are customers who care about that. Stefan
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:21 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more > > > > constructive path > > > > forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't > > > > work. > > > > That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. > > Presumably > > the stick was bought for some purpose. > > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > companies will keep bringing them to the market. But in this case the product isn't broken. The bundled Windows security software on the USB stick is a red herring, it certainly doesn't 'break' the USB stick. The OPs problem is he's trying to chown something on a FAT filesystem, and the FAT format doesn't have the concept of different ownership. Linux just sets an owner for the whole filesystem when it is mounted, so to have different owner you would need to mount it differently. (Don't ask me how, my GUI just mounts removable media when I click on it with ownership by me, which is what I want). -- Tixy
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Hmm. When I put a new flash device into service, at the very least, I wipe all bundled content from it, and may completely reformat it, depending on my needs, just as a matter of course. -- JHHL (I vaguely recall that at one time, if you bought a new wallet, the card-and-picture section would contain a fill-in-the-blanks ID card and a picture of Sandra Dee. I'd put bundled software on a flash drive into that same category.)
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Stefan Monnier wrote: > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > companies will keep bringing them to the market. > Your idea is not bad but only in theory of a dreamer. Nobody cares if you return 1 or even 1000 of 6,- US$ end user price product. It costs perhaps 1$ to produce - they produced millions. They will have a look into it only if the damage is big enough, but how many linux users will buy and return exactly this one? And for exactly the same reason? The OP doesn't even know fdisk - I bet the drive works perfectly well. The problem seems to be sitting infront of the PC. If you want to move manufactureres, you have to file a law suit and you have to have a good reason to do so.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:21:36 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more > >> > constructive path forward is to return the bugger, complaining > >> > that it doesn't work. > > > > That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Presumably > > the stick was bought for some purpose. > > If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the > companies will keep bringing them to the market. > Yes, but choose your battles. These things will be turned out by the million, it's doubtful that the Linux people are numerous enough to be worth altering a production process and foregoing a marketing aid. In this case the retailer would chuck it in the bin and ask for another one from the manufacturer, who would supply it without question. Too cheap to make a fuss about. For a large retailer, too cheap to even spend the executive time asking for a replacement. -- Joe
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
>> > Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path >> > forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. > > That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Presumably > the stick was bought for some purpose. If you never complain&return those products broken-by-design, the companies will keep bringing them to the market. Stefan
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue 08 Dec 2020 at 12:41:48 (-0700), Fred wrote: > On 12/8/20 8:53 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package > > > says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from > > > writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus > > > infested, scourge of the Earth software. > > > > Yuck! It's a bundled gift for those who don't want to bother finding a better encryption scheme. If you'd googled their website, you'd see that written in blue: "NOTE: SecureAccess is not required to use your flash drive as a storage device on Mac or PC. SecureAccess is a complimentary data encryption and password protection application." Typically one either ignores it (for insensitive files) or overwrites it with a better scheme. > > > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l > > > total 8416 > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 > > > SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe > > > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ > > > > How did you mount it? > > > > > root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 > > > chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted > > > Attempts to add write permission are also denied. I don't see a mount command. Are you using one of these peculiar fuse mounts that not even root has the privilege to change (or in some cases even to see)? I can't help you there. > > What does `dmesg` say? > > > > > Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? > > > > Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path > > forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Presumably the stick was bought for some purpose. > I have considered returning it but it only cost $6.72 and it isn't > worth standing in line at Walmart. If I can't get it to work I will > bash it with a hammer to see what is inside and buy something else > that doesn't have SecureAccess on it. It's working. I would reformat it. You're likely to meet the same problem with other similar purchases. https://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2399/~/sandisk-secureaccess-3.02-support-information-and-download-page Cheers, David.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On 12/8/20 8:40 AM, steve wrote: Hi, Le 08-12-2020, à 08:29:47 -0700, Fred a écrit : Hello, I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus infested, scourge of the Earth software. fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l total 8416 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted Attempts to add write permission are also denied. Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? Use gparted or fdisk or… to erase the partitions and then create a new one (ext2 or ext3 if only for linux, or vfat for both Linux and Windows). I am not familiar with fdisk or gparted and will study these shortly. I am presently drowning in things to do. It looks like the best thing to do is reformat it. If this doesn't work I will ask for more help. Best regards, Fred
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On 12/8/20 8:53 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus infested, scourge of the Earth software. Yuck! fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l total 8416 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ How did you mount it? root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted Attempts to add write permission are also denied. What does `dmesg` say? Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. Stefan I have considered returning it but it only cost $6.72 and it isn't worth standing in line at Walmart. If I can't get it to work I will bash it with a hammer to see what is inside and buy something else that doesn't have SecureAccess on it. Best regards, Fred
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 08:29:47AM -0700, Fred wrote: > > root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 > > chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted > > sudo chown fred /media/usb0 > > Would that work better? Not if there's a (V)FAT file system on the device. Besides, the "root@" at the start and the "#" at the end of the shell prompt would normally mean they're already root. Ownerships and permissions only work with Unix-type file systems, such as ext4.
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
> I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package > says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from > writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus > infested, scourge of the Earth software. Yuck! > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l > total 8416 > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ How did you mount it? > root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 > chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted > Attempts to add write permission are also denied. What does `dmesg` say? > Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? Others have suggested reformatting, but maybe a more constructive path forward is to return the bugger, complaining that it doesn't work. Stefan
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 08:29:47AM -0700, Fred wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package > says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from > writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus > infested, scourge of the Earth software.a Calm down! > > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l > total 8416 > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe > fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ what does dmesg say when you plug this in? I assume it will be just added as mass storage. > > root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 > chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted > sudo chown fred /media/usb0 Would that work better? > Attempts to add write permission are also denied. again since root owns this. Did you use sudo or tried from the root account? > > Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? sure rm -rf /media/usb0/SanDiskSecureAccess rm /media/usb0/SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe again it's owned by root, so use sudo. > Best regards, > Fred > -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Hi, If you don't have any real and valuable data on your usb stick, you should probably format it. See https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=46930 for example. Best regards, l0f4r0
Re: SanDisk USB stick problem
Hi, Le 08-12-2020, à 08:29:47 -0700, Fred a écrit : Hello, I bought a SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB stick. The fine print on the package says it has SecureAccess software. It is so secure it prevents me from writing to it without running the included Bill Gates cancerous, virus infested, scourge of the Earth software. fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ ls -l total 8416 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 16384 Jul 9 2018 SanDiskSecureAccess -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600360 Nov 4 2016 SanDiskSecureAccessV3.01_win.exe fred@ragnok:/media/usb0$ root@ragnok:/home/fred# chown fred /media/usb0 chown: changing ownership of '/media/usb0': Operation not permitted Attempts to add write permission are also denied. Is there any way to disable or remove the SecureAccess software? Use gparted or fdisk or… to erase the partitions and then create a new one (ext2 or ext3 if only for linux, or vfat for both Linux and Windows).
