Subject: Inappropriate ioctl ?

From: Ian Hitchman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:08:58 +0100 (BST)

Dear netatalk-admins,

Could anyone tell me what "Inappropriate ioctl for device" and
".AppleDouble/.Parent: Operation not permitted" means on user login?
Please point me to some documentation as I am a little worried.

All the best.

Ian.

System Redhat 7.0 2.2.16-22 netatalk-1.5pre6-1rh7.i386.rpm
syslod on user login...

dhx login: jjc33
Apr 20 09:36:31 ark afpd[7908]: uams_dhx_pam.c :PAM: PAM Success --
Function not implemented
Apr 20 09:36:31 ark PAM_pwdb[7908]: (netatalk) session opened for user
jjc33 by (uid=0)
Apr 20 09:36:31 ark afpd[7908]: uams_dhx_pam.c :PAM: PAM Auth OK!: (null)
-- Inappropriate ioctl for device
Apr 20 09:36:31 ark afpd[7908]: login jjc33 (uid 579, gid 550)
Apr 20 09:36:33 ark afpd[7908]: setdirowner: chown -1/0
.AppleDouble/.Parent: Operation not permitted

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Apr 2001 09:27:17 -0400

Which netatalk version?

-- 

Matthew Keller
Enterprise System Analyst
Computing & Technology Services
Information Services Division
State University of NY at Potsdam
Potsdam, NY USA

http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Apr 2001 10:54:42 -0400

Ok, ok, so I missed the version number below. My bad. It's becoming
    reflex to ask, as its seldom provided and the first thing needed to
    know. :)

    This was a problem with pre5 (and some before), but was fixed with
    pre6. Did you install pre6 over a previous "pre"? If so, you're
    probably running a mix of pre6 and preX as the files were put in
    differnt places for pre6.

-- 

Matthew Keller

---

From: Ian Hitchman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:14:41 +0100 (BST)

I had netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.1.4-0.i386.rpm running previously. I removed
this with rpm -e netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.1.4-0 --allmatches
and checked /etc/services for the removal of ddp entries as well removing
/etc/atalk rpm.config? or file of similar name.
After that I simply rpm -i --test netatalk-1.5pre6-1rh7.i386.rpm with
no errors and installed it. I suspect I have not read some documentation
but as to what I do not know.

Ian.

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Apr 2001 12:39:32 -0400

Cool, thanks. Anyone else having this problem with 1.5pre6? I have
    numerous installs of it now (always compiled from source) and
    haven't seen this one rear its ugly head since pre5. 

    The problem is that the premissions in .AppleDouble are set wrong.
    This may be a legacy problem and setting them manually once will fix
    them (for that folder). Subsequent operations should be ok.

-- 

Matthew Keller

---

From: Ian Hitchman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:39:56 +0100 (BST)

Thanks for the response but I am a little confused as to the .AppleDouble
permission settings and how I should change them. All permissions appear
to be fine as I 'chmod -R 755 home1' the top directory containing all my
users and 'chgrp -R staff home1' similarly. All users own there own
directories chown -R auser auser.

Ian.

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 2001 09:32:41 -0400

Generally, when this error shows in the logs, the .AppleDouble (or a
    file within it) is set to all nothing. Thus, even the owner can't
    change its permissions. If you're positive that the perms are right
    (and positive you don't have any legacy Netatalk binaries running
    around), and still getting this error- That's pretty odd, and I'm at
    a loss for diagnostics.

    Anyone else got ideas?

-- 

Matthew Keller

---

From: Lorenzo Perone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:19:22 +0200

>    around), and still getting this error- That's pretty odd, and I'm at

Hi,

sorry, maybe this is a stupid note, but nobody ever mentioned umask: could the described problems be related somehow to the users' umasks? Are any .profile files executed by afpd after login? Or is there a setting for umasks? Or does afpd use umask somewhere at the beginning? Or any suggestion on that? I mean why should a file be created with no rights with a umask, say, of 117...... (there's a lot I don't know, I know....)?

;-)

Lorenzo