Change permissions on /dev file?

[Toralf Lund]

>>[ ... ]
>>
>>Anyhow, how do I get udev to actually use the mode I've told it to use???
>>
>>- Toralf
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>hey toralf -
>
>i had that same frustration.  i was sure that udev wasn't properly
>setting the permissions.  but...
>
>i suspect that udev is doing the proper permissions.  what you are
>seeing is the result of the pam security stuff
>in /etc/security/console.perms.d
>
>when a user logs in, the devices controlled by that system, have their
>owners and permissions changed as specified.
>
>i just finished putting up a file in that directory called local.perms
>because of scanner problems here.  the scanner part is:
>
><scanner>=/dev/scanner* /dev/usb/scanner* /dev/sg*
>
># permission definitions
>
><console>  0666 <scanner>    0666 root
>  
>
Ah, I see. Tanks.

>i'm not yet sure that the /dev/sg* part is necessary.
>
I'm on a different machine right now and can't check the setup in 
question, but I found after posting the last message that the 
permissions on /dev/sg0 would be left alone as long as I didn't create a 
"scanner" link pointing to it. Surely that means my config refers to the 
symlink, and also that the link is "followed" when doing that. So I 
suppose you don't need /dev/sg* if you always have /dev/scanner* links 
pointing to the devices you are interested in.

>  note that 666 may
>not be what you want. but, i sometimes su to other users for testing
>and its more convenient for me.
>
>you can use udevstart to rescan for devices and it appears to also force
>the console/pam stuff to re-do things as well.
>
>it appears that the perms files need to be named the reverse of the udev
>rules files.  as i currently understand it, with the perms files, the
>last one read is the winner.  but, with udev, it seems to be the case
>that the first one found is the winner.  so, my local udev rules are
>named 10-local.rules  but, my local console perms file is named
>local.perms, so it gets parsed after the 50-* file does.
>
>still in the process, so YMMV.
>  
>
OK.

Thanks again.

- Toralf