a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules

[Scott Berry]

Hello there evryone,

I am stuck here I am unsure how to do this step.  When I have my father open 
Sane it will not allow his new Brother 240C to scan.  I have an idea what 
the problem is in fact is is saying "Device I/o error."  But what I need 
help with is how to implement this faq question in to the file listed in the 
subject.  This comes from Brother's site and it is for Suse but I believe it 
is the same exact symptoms.  If some one can explain to me how to make this 
change I would be greatful.  Here is the faq question and answer.

. I'm using SuSE10.2. When scanning I receive the error "Error open the 
Device 'brother2:bus1:dev1' Error during Device I/O".

1.As root or super user (su) open the file 
"/etc/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules" with an editor.
list end

block quote
2.Search for the line that starts with "SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device, change the 
last portion from MODE="0644" to MODE="0666", and save the file.

3.Restart the PC.

block quote end

Scott

[Mikkel]

Scott wrote:
>  Hello there evryone,
>  
>  I am stuck here I am unsure how to do this step.  When I have my father
>  open Sane it will not allow his new Brother 240C to scan.  I have an
>  idea what the problem is in fact is is saying "Device I/o error."  But
>  what I need help with is how to implement this faq question in to the
>  file listed in the subject.  This comes from Brother's site and it is
>  for Suse but I believe it is the same exact symptoms.  If some one can
>  explain to me how to make this change I would be greatful.  Here is the
>  faq question and answer.
>  
>  . I'm using SuSE10.2. When scanning I receive the error "Error open the
>  Device 'brother2:bus1:dev1' Error during Device I/O".
>  
>  1.As root or super user (su) open the file
>  "/etc/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules" with an editor.
>  list end
>  
>  block quote
>  2.Search for the line that starts with "SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device, change
>  the last portion from MODE="0644" to MODE="0666", and save the file.
>  
>  3.Restart the PC.
>  
>  block quote end
>  
>  Scott 
I think what you need is a file 61-local-sane.rules that has
something like:

ACTION!="add", GOTO="libsane_rules_end"
SUBSYSTEM!="usb_device", GOTO="libsane_rules_end"

SYSFS{idVendor}=="<brother vender id>", SYSFS{idProduct}=="<240c
product ID>", SYMLINK+="scanner-%k"

LABEL="libsane_rules_end"

You will have to fill in the correct vendor and product ID. You can
get them by running lsusb if you have it installed, or by looking in
/proc/bus/usb/devices.

Once the proper symlink is created, console.prems will take care of
setting the permissions so the user logged in at the console can use
it. You may want to file a bug report with the vendor and product
IDs so they can be added to the libsane rules.

You could just put the SYSFS rule in libsame.rules befor the LABEL
line, but you run the risk of it getting lost because of an update.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Mikkel]

Scott wrote:
>  Mikkel,
>  
>  Now the permissions in console.perms did not take over correctly.
>  The scanner for the Brother is supposed to be set at 0666 and I
>  forget where the original setting is at but the scanner is not able
>  to be used under the user's name. So how would one go about changing
>  that permission to 0666?
>  
>  Scott
>   
Sctot, is the scanner symlink being created? If not, then that needs
to be fixed in order for console.perms to work correctly. The other
choice is to change the udev rule so it creates a different symlink
- maybe brother, and has MODE="0666" as part of the rule.

SYSFS{idVendor}=="<brother vender id>", SYSFS{idProduct}=="<240c
product ID>", MODE="0666", SYMLINK+="brother-%k"

Also, changing or adding a udev rule will not affect an existing
device. So you will have to unplug the printer, wait 30 second of
more, and plug it back in.

The console.perms sets the permissions of the scanner to 600, but it
also sets the owner to the user currently logged into the console,
or root if there is no user logged in. The theory behind this is
that only the person logged in at the local machine should be using
the scanner. If you are sure you want to change this, you can add a
file /etc/security/console.perms.d/60-scanner.perms and put in a
line "<console>  0600 <scanner>    0666 root". The 0600 is the
permissions when someone is logged into the console, and the 0666 is
when no-one is. Change the 0600 to 0666 if you want everyone to have
access all the time. This is supposed to overrule the scanner rule
in 50-default.perms, but I have not tested it.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Mikkel]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>  Sctot, is the scanner symlink being created? If not, then that needs
>  to be fixed in order for console.perms to work correctly. The other
>  choice is to change the udev rule so it creates a different symlink
>  - maybe brother, and has MODE="0666" as part of the rule.
>  
>  SYSFS{idVendor}=="<brother vender id>", SYSFS{idProduct}=="<240c
>  product ID>", MODE="0666", SYMLINK+="brother-%k"
>  
>  Also, changing or adding a udev rule will not affect an existing
>  device. So you will have to unplug the printer, wait 30 second of
>  more, and plug it back in.
>  
>  The console.perms sets the permissions of the scanner to 600, but it
>  also sets the owner to the user currently logged into the console,
>  or root if there is no user logged in. The theory behind this is
>  that only the person logged in at the local machine should be using
>  the scanner. If you are sure you want to change this, you can add a
>  file /etc/security/console.perms.d/60-scanner.perms and put in a
>  line "<console>  0600 <scanner>    0666 root". The 0600 is the
>  permissions when someone is logged into the console, and the 0666 is
>  when no-one is. Change the 0600 to 0666 if you want everyone to have
>  access all the time. This is supposed to overrule the scanner rule
>  in 50-default.perms, but I have not tested it.
>  
>  Mikkel
>   
Something strange happened to this message - I didn't spell Scott
wrong in the original message. It also seams to have 2 GPG
signatures. In any case, it fails the GPG test.

"Error - signature verification failed; click Pen icon for details"

Then again, the message I was replying to was attached to the wrong
thread. Time to chase the gremlins out again! :)

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Scott Berry]

Mikkel,

Where is the scanner sym link supposed to be created?

Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com&gt;
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules


>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 
4:40 PM

[Mikkel]

Scott wrote:
>  Mikkel,
>  
>  Where is the scanner sym link supposed to be created?
>  
>  Scott
>   
In the /dev directory. Programs can use it just like any /dev file.
Symlinks do not have any permissions by themselves, but use the
permissions of the file they point to.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Scott Berry]

Hi Mikkel,

Okay I just peed in /dev and saw neither no scanner or brother directory. 
So that is where the problem is.  Now from what I understand is in the 
60-libsane.rules file that is to create the sym link itself or is that a 
manual process?  If so where should the sym link be made from?

Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com&gt;
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules


>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 
4:40 PM

[Mikkel]

Scott wrote:
>  Hi Mikkel,
>  
>  Okay I just peed in /dev and saw neither no scanner or brother
>  directory. So that is where the problem is.  Now from what I understand
>  is in the 60-libsane.rules file that is to create the sym link itself or
>  is that a manual process?  If so where should the sym link be made from?
>  
>  Scott
>   
It is an automatic process. The scanner and brother will be files,
and not directories. They will also be something like scanner-1 or
brother-1. You will only get the brother-1 symlink if you created
the rule file we talked about. But if your printer/scanner is not
listed in 60-libsane.rules then the device entry and syslink are
probably not going to be created, or be created with a name that you
will not recognize. This is why I said you may have to create your
own rule file for it. On my system, I see a listing for a MFC-420CN
but not a 420C (I am guessing that it is a MFC-420C).

Try creating a 61-brother.rules file, and putting a line something
like this in it. (All on one line, even though it gets wrapped here.):

SYSFS{idVendor}=="04f9", SYSFS{idProduct}=="<240C product ID>",
MODE="0666", SYMLINK+="brother-%n"

You will have to replace <240C product ID> with the correct product
ID for your device. I already covered how to find it, so I will not
repeat it here. This should create a symlink called brother-1. Note
- this rule is different then the ones found in 60-libsane.rules. It
will not create a scanner-<something> symlink. Because of this, the
permissions will not be subject to console.perms changes, so you
will keep the 0666 permissions you want. If you would rather have a
scanner-<something> symlink, I can create one for you. I already
posted the console.perms file you would need to override the
permissions set in 50-default.perms.

If you have a hard time with the Product ID, let me know. If you
post the output of lsusb with the printer plugged in, I can help you
identify the correct value.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Scott Berry]

Mikkel,

I think I know the device id but I want to check with you and make sure I am 
correct.  Here is my list out from lsusb:

Bus 005 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 002 Device 002:  (I think this is the id to the right of this line.) ID 
04f9:01ab Brother Industries, Ltd
Bus 002 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 004 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 00  Device 001: ID 0000:0000
[










----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com&gt;
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules


>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 
4:40 PM

[Mikkel]

Scott wrote:
>  Mikkel,
>  
>  I think I know the device id but I want to check with you and make sure
>  I am correct.  Here is my list out from lsusb:
>  
>  Bus 005 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
>  Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
>  Bus 002 Device 002:  (I think this is the id to the right of this line.)
>  ID 04f9:01ab Brother Industries, Ltd
>  Bus 002 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
>  Bus 004 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
>  Bus 00  Device 001: ID 0000:0000
>   
Yes, that is the one. idVendor is 04f9 and idProduct is 01ab. It
definitely is not in 60-libsane.rules. I suspect that no-one has
provided that information to the SANE project.

Now that you have the numbers for it, you have to decide how you
want to handle it. You can create a rule that creates a
scanner-<something> symlink that will then be managed by
console.perms, or a brother-<someting> symlink that you set the
permissions on yourself. If you have been saving the emails, you
have examples of both - just fill in the idVendor and idProduct values.

Let me know what you decide to do, and how it works out. If you run
into problems, definitely ask more questions here!

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Scott Berry]

Mikkel,

The 61-brother.rules got it.  Thanks very much my father appreciates your 
help.

Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com&gt;
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules


>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 
4:40 PM

[Scott Berry]

Hi Mikkel,

Thank you very much for your help.  Myy father appreciates your help very 
much.

Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com&gt;
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: a question about udev rule 50-libsane.rules


>  -- 
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 
4:40 PM