Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

On 09/18/2013 04:47 PM, Pere wrote: On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. How do you know for sure ? Because this is Busybox's uname. I think i

Re: Question about Busybox Testsuite

On 10/29/2013 06:58 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM, ChenQi wrote: Hi all, Does busybox's testsuite still make sense for a sanity check? Yes. It is used before every major release to prevent regressions. I just built a busybox and used `make check' to

Question about the installation directory of programs

Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dummy question. I see the installation directories of programs are controlled by the applets.src.h file. Some of them are installed into /usr while some of them are not. Is there a criteria to determine whether a program goes into /usr or not. For example, why is

Re: Question about the installation directory of programs

. 1. make allyesconfig 2. make busybox.links 3. grep '^/bin/' busybox.links Best Regards, Chen Qi On Thursday 07 November 2013 07:56:01 ChenQi wrote: Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dummy question. I see the installation directories of programs are controlled by the applets.src.h file. Some o

Re: Question about the installation directory of programs

On 11/08/2013 04:13 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: On 2013-11-07 01:56, ChenQi wrote: Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dummy question. I see the installation directories of programs are controlled by the applets.src.h file. Some of them are installed into /usr while some of them are not. Is

Re: [PATCH alternative] sulogin: fix FEATURE_SHADOWPASSWDS sematics

On 11/17/2013 04:31 PM, Tito wrote: On Saturday 16 November 2013 22:55:16 Harald Becker wrote: Hi Tito ! On 16-11-2013 22:03 Tito wrote: usually passwd sets password field to x in /etc/passwd if password field in /etc/shadow is used so in a correctly managed system there should not be empty p

Why '-c DEV' option for switch_root?

Hi All, I noticed that switch_root in our busybox supports an extra option '-c DEV' which is not supported by the same command from util-linux. According to the source file, it's used to 'reopen stdio to DEV after switch'. Does anyone know why we need this option? Is there any use case where

Re: Why '-c DEV' option for switch_root?

On 12/05/2013 06:10 PM, Harald Becker wrote: Hi ! On 05-12-2013 14:59 ChenQi wrote: I noticed that switch_root in our busybox supports an extra option '-c DEV' which is not supported by the same command from util-linux. According to the source file, it's used to 'reope

Re: Why '-c DEV' option for switch_root?

On 12/06/2013 06:28 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote: I don't know if I understand it right. Does it mean that as long as we don't do some strange redirections of standard IO in our initramfs, we don't need to add this option when switching root? So in most cases we don't need to reopen the stdio, r

busybox 1.26.1 is 15% larger than 1.24.1 with the same configuration

-- 2 chenqi chenqi 420K Jan 6 14:04 tmp/deploy/rpm/core2_64/busybox-1.26.1-r0.core2_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4 chenqi chenqi 366K Dec 27 18:07 tmp/deploy/rpm/core2_64/busybox-1.24.1-r0.core2_64.rpm By the way, I used the same compiler, same flags, etc. The only difference is the busybox version

Re: [PATCH] tar.tests: also check uudecode

Please ignore this patch. I found unzip.tests also has a similar problem. Regards, Chen Qi On 11/13/2018 01:05 PM, Chen Qi wrote: The test case uses uudecode command, so also check it via optional function. Signed-off-by: Chen Qi --- testsuite/tar.tests | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(

Re: [EXTERNAL] [RESEND(4) PATCH] archival: disallow path traversals (CVE-2023-39810)

Will this patch be accepted? Or is it not suitable for busybox for some reason? Regards, Qi On 10/11/24 15:54, Ian Norton wrote: FYI, This seems also related to https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=16018

Re: [EXTERNAL] [RESEND(4) PATCH] archival: disallow path traversals (CVE-2023-39810)

Will this patch be accepted? Or is it not suitable for busybox for some reason? Regards, Qi On 10/11/24 15:54, Ian Norton wrote: FYI, This seems also related to https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=16018

Re: [EXTERNAL] [RESEND(4) PATCH] archival: disallow path traversals (CVE-2023-39810)

outside the cwd (and use absolute paths) But because #16018 can be used to mask the output from `tar -t` it allows an attacker to defeat almost all manual or shell-scripted inspection of the archive that would allow a user to catch and prevent these traversals. *From: *busybox on behalf of ChenQi