Same here. And, installing Desktop also breaks HTPC. (Ubuntu 24)
This was a change by Canonical (and possibly repeated by some others) that broke several applications. It broke Chrome and anything that was based on Chromium (which is a pretty long list). See Bug #2017980 āFATAL:credentials.cc(127)] Check failed: . : Permi...ā : Bugs : linux-meta-nvidia-5.19 package : Ubuntu. It has nothing to do with the version of plex-desktop/plex-htpc you have installed or any updates to it.
From the info in the above link, it seems that Chromium never checked the result of a syscall and subsequently broke when it failed. The reason the --no-sandbox works has nothing to do with snap but rather because that argument is passed through to the app which then passes it into the Chromium backend and tell it to not create userns to sandbox processes.
Chromium did eventually fix this but we cannot take advantage of it because doing so would require upgrading the version of Qt and, as Iāve stated in other threads, newer versions of Qt completely broke transparency. So either you would have no playhead or no video (neither option is any good).
So, going forward, it seems that integrating the --no-sandbox argument into the arguments provided to the app is the only option. Fortunate the app never executes any JS/TS code from other locations and only uses the code bundled into the app.
1 Like
@gbooker02 Thanks for sharing and helping us understand whatās been going on. How should we permanently imply the --no-sandbox resolution for HTPC and Desktop in Linux?
Any way to just make snap issue the command directly, I would like to be able to click the icon and just have it come up
Would there be a way to add plex-desktop:home with
snap connections gedit
I see āhomeā listed for other snap appsā¦but not one for plex-desktop, maybe the connection plugin needs to be added for further releases to fix the --no-sandbox flag
1 Like
Itāll be in the argument list for the launch script inside the snap in a future version (I think itāll be the next version for both apps).
1 Like
Iām no security expert or coder, but it would seem running it with the --no-sandbox flag is not a secure long term solution. There is reason sandboxing was developed.
Can confirm, version 1.107.1 (snap), released today opens without issues. The āāno-sandboxā appears to be built into the launch script now.
1 Like
Yes; it is intended to protect the user from malicious code on a remote site. However, see my prior comment:
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
