PolicyKit confusion - DBus error org.gtk.Private.RemoteVolumeMonitor.Failed: An operation is already pending

Da Rock freebsd-questions at herveybayaustralia.com.au
Fri Dec 23 11:30:30 UTC 2011

On 12/23/11 16:11, Da Rock wrote:
> On 12/23/11 15:37, Polytropon wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:18:19 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
>>> I checked out /media/hal-* and I see that the mount occurs only as 
>>> root.
>>> How do I change that exactly? I need it showing for operator group. 
>>> I've
>>> searched high and low and googled my brains out, but anything remotely
>>> related is for linux and udev.
> I had a feeling you'd be replying to this one :)
>> I think I remember I got it working some time ago
>> (on a 7.1 system), relying on the Gnome HAL FAQ
>> which stated something like this:
>> File: /usr/local/etc/PolicyKit/PolicyKit.conf
>> <config version="0.1">
>> <match action="org.freedesktop.hal.storage.mount-removable">
>> <match user="marcus">
>> <return result="NNNNN"/>
>> </match>
>> </match>
>> <match action="org.freedesktop.hal.storage.mount-fixed">
>> <match user="marcus">
>> <return result="NNNNN"/>
>> </match>
>> </match>
>> </config>
>> For "NNNNN", use your user name; I think you can also
>> use more than one "match" section if you want to allow
>> access for other users. However, I doubt all this
>> HAL / DBUS / PolicyKit magic is really intended for
>> multi-user purposes. :-)
> Followed that and done that, didn't work. Although it does say 
> 'result="yes"' not "user". Sorry: that was the freebsd-gnome FAQ.
> Do you see any way of using "group" instead of "user"?
> Incidentally, the disk shows up (in case I wasn't being all too 
> clear), as a user I can't access it. And in the hal-tab it shows -u=0 
> as I said. I hunted down that scenario and it sent me down a very 
> foggy path using hal-fdi's - setting -uid and -u settings.
> I then checked out /usr/local/share/hal/fdi/policy/ and found in some 
> files (particularly storage) the "key" options are set to "u=" or "uid=".
Ok, more data: I believe I'm getting closer. If I set Polkit.conf to 
match a user rather than a group I fail immediately with permission 
errors, same as before. However, if I use the group then I get:

DBus error org.gtk.Private.RemoteVolumeMonitor.Failed: An operation is 
already pending

dbus-launch gnome-mount --verbose... blah blah (as per instructions for 
debug output at freebsd-gnome hal faq) simply hangs, like this:

dbus-launch gnome-mount --block --no-ui --verbose --hal-udi 
gnome-mount 0.8
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: Mounting 
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: read default option 'longnames' from gconf 
strlist key /system/storage/default_options/vfat/mount_options
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: read default option '-u=' from gconf 
strlist key /system/storage/default_options/vfat/mount_options
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG: Mounting 
/org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_uuid_1061_EF39 with mount_point='', 
fstype='', num_options=2
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG:   option='longnames'
** (gnome-mount:8314): DEBUG:   option='-u=1001'

Interestingly enough, if I try it with the user instead of group I get 
the last option there saying -u=0. And /media/.hal-mtab shows that too. 
In this case I get just .hal-mtab-lock file.

Something interesting just happened- after 20mins or so nautilus barfs 
up a message about being unable to mount the drive:

DBus error org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NoReply: Did not receive a reply. 
Possible causes include: the remote application did not send a reply, 
the message bus security policy blocked the reply, the reply timeout 
expired, or the network connection was broken.
> So I'm still attempting to assimilate all that to produce something 
> other than a brainfart, and possibly restore balance to the force in 
> that way.
> Oh, and to preclude any suggestion to this effect, I have set 
> vfs.usermount=1.
>> Note that HAL also has an option of "fixed mount points"
>> to be set at compile time. I think I had set it...
> No. At least I don't think I set it.
>> I'm also unsure if NFS mounts are "fixed" or "removable"
>> in PK terminology.
> Nothing is clear on any of this. Which nutcase designed this anyway? 
> Any documentation is vague and unclear, and the software config itself 
> is about as clear as the weather on venus- and just as toxic too ;)
>> Regarding your second question, I can't provide any
>> further information. I just assume it's a means to
>> turn a safe multi-user system into an insecure
>> single-user system, which is what users expect. :-)
> Dear god! What is this world coming to? And yet they all clamour to 
> use the computer at the same time... thats the scene I see in families 
> all the time, let alone work operations.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list