Jellyfin Metadata Permissions: Fixing Readability Issues

Hey guys! Today, we're diving deep into a specific issue some of you might have encountered while using Jellyfin: metadata files being stored with restrictive 0600 permissions. This can cause a bit of a headache, especially when you want other users within the same group as your Jellyfin server to access this metadata. Let's break down the problem, explore why it's happening, and discuss potential solutions to make your Jellyfin experience smoother.

Understanding the Issue

So, what's the big deal with metadata permissions? Essentially, when Jellyfin writes metadata files (think images fetched from TheAudioDB or those generated during trickplay), it's currently setting the permissions to 0600. In the Linux world, these permissions dictate who can read, write, and execute a file. The 0600 setting means that only the user running the Jellyfin process has read and write access. This becomes problematic when you have multiple users in the same group who need to access this metadata. For instance, if you're running Jellyfin and another application that needs to read the metadata, the other application will be denied access. This can lead to various issues, from broken integrations to simply not being able to view certain information.

Why is this happening?

You might be wondering why Jellyfin is configured to write metadata with such restrictive permissions in the first place. While the exact reasoning isn't explicitly stated, it could be a default security measure to prevent unauthorized access or modification of metadata. However, in many home server setups, this level of restriction is unnecessary and actually hinders usability. Ideally, you want a balance between security and convenience, and in this case, the current setup leans too heavily towards the former.

The Impact on Users

The real kicker here is the extra work it creates for users. Imagine setting up your Jellyfin server, adding your media library, and then realizing that other applications or users can't access the metadata. Now, you're stuck manually changing file permissions or creating workarounds just to get things running smoothly. This is not only time-consuming but also adds unnecessary complexity to what should be a straightforward process. We want a system that works out of the box, without requiring advanced Linux knowledge or constant tinkering.

The Proposed Solutions

Okay, so we've established that the current permission setup can be a pain. What are the solutions? The user who reported the issue proposes two main approaches:

1. Changing the Default Permissions to 0644: The most straightforward solution is to simply change the default permissions with which Jellyfin writes metadata files to 0644. This setting allows the owner (the user running Jellyfin) to read and write, and anyone in the same group to read the files. This is a reasonable compromise that provides sufficient security while ensuring that other applications and users within the group can access the metadata.
2. Adding a Configuration Option for Permissions: A more flexible approach would be to add a configuration option within Jellyfin that allows users to specify the desired permissions for metadata files. This would cater to users with different security needs and preferences. For example, someone in a shared hosting environment might prefer the more restrictive 0600 permissions, while a home user might opt for 0644 or even 0755 (allowing execution). This approach provides the best of both worlds: security for those who need it and convenience for those who don't.

Why These Solutions Make Sense

Both of these solutions address the core problem: the current restrictive permissions hinder usability. Changing the default to 0644 provides a sensible balance for most users, while adding a configuration option offers maximum flexibility. These changes would reduce the need for manual intervention and make Jellyfin more user-friendly, especially for those who aren't Linux gurus.

Diving into the Technical Details

Let's get a bit more specific about how this issue manifests and the environment in which it was observed. The user who reported the bug is running Jellyfin Server version 10.10.7 on NixOS, with TheAudioDB plugin installed. They noticed that after adding an album or movie and generating metadata (either through trickplay or TheAudioDB), the newly created metadata files were being written with 0600 permissions. This meant that other users in the same group as the one running Jellyfin couldn't read these files.

The Environment

• Operating System: NixOS
• Jellyfin Version: 10.10.7
• Plugins: TheAudioDB

Reproduction Steps

To reproduce the issue, follow these steps:

1. Add an album or movie to your Jellyfin library.
2. Generate metadata, either by using trickplay or by fetching images from TheAudioDB.
3. Check the permissions on the newly created metadata files. You should see that they are set to 0600.

Lack of Logs

Interestingly, the user reported that there were no relevant logs to provide. This suggests that the issue is not an error or a crash but rather an intended behavior (albeit one that's causing problems). The absence of logs makes it even more crucial to address this through a configuration change or a modification of the default permissions.

Real-World Scenarios and Use Cases

To further illustrate the impact of this issue, let's consider some real-world scenarios:

• Scenario 1: Shared Home Server: Imagine a family using a home server to host their media library with Jellyfin. They have multiple user accounts on the server, and they want everyone to be able to access the metadata (e.g., view cover art, read descriptions). With the current 0600 permissions, only the user running Jellyfin can access this metadata, which means other family members might see broken images or missing information.
• Scenario 2: Integration with Other Applications: Suppose you want to integrate Jellyfin with another application, such as a home automation system or a media management tool. If that application needs to read Jellyfin's metadata, it will be unable to do so because of the restrictive permissions. This can break the integration and limit the functionality of your setup.
• Scenario 3: Dockerized Jellyfin: When running Jellyfin in a Docker container, you might want to share the metadata directory with the host system or another container. With 0600 permissions, this becomes difficult because the other processes won't have access to the files. You'll need to resort to complex permission management or workarounds, which adds unnecessary overhead.

Addressing Potential Concerns

Now, let's address some potential concerns that might arise from changing the default permissions or adding a configuration option:

• Security: Some might argue that changing the permissions to 0644 or allowing users to configure them could introduce security vulnerabilities. However, in most home server scenarios, the risk is minimal. The vast majority of Jellyfin users are running it on private networks behind firewalls, and the likelihood of unauthorized access to metadata files is low. Moreover, the benefits of improved usability and integration outweigh the small security risk.
• Complexity: Adding a configuration option could be seen as adding unnecessary complexity to Jellyfin's settings. However, the option could be implemented in a simple and intuitive way, and it would only be relevant to users who need it. Most users could simply stick with the default 0644 permissions, while those with specific requirements would have the flexibility to adjust them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current practice of storing metadata files with 0600 permissions in Jellyfin can create unnecessary headaches for users, especially those in shared environments or those who want to integrate Jellyfin with other applications. Changing the default permissions to 0644 or adding a configuration option for specifying permissions would greatly improve usability and flexibility without introducing significant security risks. Let's hope the Jellyfin developers consider implementing one of these solutions in a future release! What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments below!