Re: service file permissions breaking due to file 5.47 / redhat-rpm-config

Em qui., 13 de ago. de 2026, 07:42, Petr Sklenar via devel <
[email protected]> escreveu:

> Hi,
>
> while testing F45 Rawhide I noticed systemd complaining during boot:
>
>    Configuration file
> /usr/lib/systemd/system/flatpak-add-fedora-repos.service
>    is marked executable. Please remove executable permission bits.
>    Proceeding anyway.
>
> It turns out file 5.47 now classifies .service files as
> application/x-wine-extension-ini instead of text/plain. This breaks
> brp-mangle-shebangs, which greps for text/ to find executable files
> without shebangs and chmod -x them.
>
> So any package using install -p without explicit -m 0644 for unit
> files ends up shipping them with 0755. The big ones (systemd, httpd,
> nginx...) set permissions explicitly, so they are unaffected.
>
> I couldn't find a better way to check this than downloading the RPMs
> and scanning them directly, since repodata don't include file
> permissions:
>
>   dnf5 download --repo=rawhide --destdir /tmp/scan/ <package-list>
>
>   for f in /tmp/scan/*.rpm; do
>       rpm -qlp --dump "$f" \
>       | grep -E '/usr/lib/systemd/.*\.(service|socket|timer)' \
>       | grep '0100755 '
>   done
>
> On an installed system it's simpler:
>   find /usr/lib/systemd -type f -name '*.service' -perm /111 -ls
>
> I scanned all 1160 packages that ship unit files in rawhide
> (x86_64 + noarch) and found 20 affected:
>
>    aprsd, archlinux-keyring, asahi-battery,
>    containernetworking-plugins, crossfire, flatpak,
>    gnupg2 (dirmngr, gpg-agent, keyboxd), grub2-tools,
>    ip-sentinel, liquidwar-server, Perlbal, restmbmaster,
>    scsi-target-utils, sgx-aesm, spindown, up-imapproxy,
>    vaultwarden, vsomeip3-routingmanager
>
> Filed bugs:
>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513643 (file)
>    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513837 (redhat-rpm-config)
>
> Note that these packages were built during the F45 mass rebuild,
> so even if file or brp-mangle-shebangs gets fixed, these 20
> packages won't pick up the fix until they are rebuilt individually.
>
> RPM developers also pointed out in BZ#2512037 that relying on
> brp-mangle-shebangs for this is fragile anyway, and specs should
> just use install -m 0644.
>
> Should we file individual bugs for these 20 packages, or fix the
> specs directly? Either way they'll need a rebuild. I can go ahead
> and file the bugzilla tickets if that makes sense.
>
> --
> Petr Sklenar
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new


Hello all,

I have a few notes/questions about this:

* .service files are effectively based on .ini syntax, so it makes a lot of
sense they are are recognized as .ini files
* I don't get at all why it being recognized as an .ini for handling with
wine would actually warrant executable permission, what does wine try to do
with it?
* Why don't we have a mime type specific to systemd units instead of
relying on text/plain? We do know they have most characteristic of an .ini
plus having several specific extensions that are usually only used with
systemd.

Thanks for your time,
Mateus Rodrigues Costa

-- 
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new