On Thu, March 5, 2009 8:43 pm, aelmahmo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 04:56:46PM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
>> Ok, here's the patch. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit.
>>
>> I'm at my mom's house right now, so I hooked up the land line, dialed,
>> and
>> gave the patc
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 04:56:46PM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
> Ok, here's the patch. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit.
>
> I'm at my mom's house right now, so I hooked up the land line, dialed, and
> gave the patch a rudimentary test with actual connectivity. It seems to
> work fine, even wit
On Wed, February 18, 2009 10:31 pm, Corey Hickey wrote:
> Additionally, I can write a patch that checks the current limit and
> makes slmodemd warn or die if the limit is judged to be too low. I'm
> mildly in favor of that approach rather than having slmodemd modify the
> limit itself.
Ok, here's
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> It sounds reasonable. As you see, I have asked Ian to comment on this.
> In the meantime I see that wether we leave it unlimited or if we limit
> it to say 16 MB, there is the issue that a user who may want to run
> slmodemd manually (like Corey does), so we can do
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 01:54:38AM +0100, Mau wrote:
> I've made some quick tests and, since now, the memory slmodemd allocates
> never exceeded 4192KB: this seems to confirm what Corey said (4208KB,
> the memory slmodemd allocates at start). Assuming what I wrote was
> right, 8MB would be
Just a consideration.
If I'm not wrong, assigning unlimited locked memory can give the process
the ability to lock the whole machine: dropping the privileges loses
then part of its sense.
I don't have enough knowledge to say more - I'm not even sure what I
wrote makes sense - but I feel that, if
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 03:15:03AM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
>> I would guess that your locked memory limit is either high or unlimited.
>> See 'ulimit -l' or 'ulimit -a'.
> ---end quoted text---
>
> I just found out that /etc/init.d/sl-modem-daemon got this:
>
> ulim
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 03:15:03AM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
> I would guess that your locked memory limit is either high or unlimited.
> See 'ulimit -l' or 'ulimit -a'.
---end quoted text---
I just found out that /etc/init.d/sl-modem-daemon got this:
ulimit -Hl unlimited; ulimit -Sl unlimi
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> Yet I have been asking myself since yesterday, why does it happen with
> Corey, yet not with me nor Mau ?! That problem does not seem to be
> device specific problem, does it ?
I would guess that your locked memory limit is either high or unlimited.
See 'ulimit -l'
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 01:51:12AM +0100, Mau wrote:
> I'd try to apply your patch, which seems just fine: I think 8 MB is a
> reasonable value to start with.
>
> Ahmed, do you agree?
>
>
> Maurizio
---end quoted text---
Thanks guys, I really don't have the knowledge to comment on thi
Il 17/02/2009 00:05, Corey Hickey ha scritto:
> [...]
>
> That's a good idea, and I tried it, but I think that's not quite how
> limits.conf works. I haven't found anything that says this plainly, but
> I'm pretty sure the following are true:
>
> * Limits are applied at login by the pam_limits mo
Maurizio Avogadro wrote:
> Il 16/02/2009 00:40, Corey Hickey ha scritto:
>> Ok, here's the problem.
>>
>> modem_main.c:976 function modem_main()
>> --
>> if (need_realtime) {
>> struct sched_param prm;
>>
Il 16/02/2009 00:40, Corey Hickey ha scritto:
> Ok, here's the problem.
>
> modem_main.c:976 function modem_main()
> --
> if (need_realtime) {
> struct sched_param prm;
> if(mlockall(MCL_CU
Corey Hickey wrote:
> I don't know why the malloc() fails. I went to the same line in my
> slmodemd binary that doesn't have 10_drop_privileges.diff, and that
> malloc() succeeded, with the same arguments.
>
> Going back to the regular privilege-dropping binary, I used gdb to run
> some malloc() t
Maurizio Avogadro wrote:
> Il 13/02/2009 00:14, Corey Hickey ha scritto:
>> There aren't any flags on the open() system call; O_CREAT would be
>> needed.
>
> The data file is actually created on the first write:
>
> modem/modem_datafile.c:110, function datafile_save_info()
> -
Il 13/02/2009 00:14, Corey Hickey ha scritto:
> [...]
> It appears that slmodemd isn't creating /var/lib/slmodem/data.modem:1
> even though it should have permissions to create files in the directory
> (isn't it still running as root at that point, anyway?). Actually, now
> that I check the source,
Corey Hickey wrote:
> I just tried the Debian 2.6.26-1-686 kernel, and the slmodemd process
> was killable, but the modem didn't work: it kept responding "NO CARRIER"
> immediately after dialing.
[cut]
> I'm going to try to figure out what it is in my particular kernel
> configuration that's caus
I just tried the Debian 2.6.26-1-686 kernel, and the slmodemd process
was killable, but the modem didn't work: it kept responding "NO CARRIER"
immediately after dialing.
In case it's of any use, I'm attaching a couple log files:
slmodemd_2.6.26-1-686.log
slmodemd_2.6.26-1-686_no-drop-privs.log
T
أحمد المحمودي wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Maurizio Avogadro -
>
> sorry for my late but I'm very busy... after the first glance:
>
> 1. I noticed that some previous version left a
>
> - ---Sr--r-T root root data.(slamr|modem:)[0-9]
>
> file in /var/lib/slmodem: maybe the slmodemd
- Forwarded message from Maurizio Avogadro -
sorry for my late but I'm very busy... after the first glance:
1. I noticed that some previous version left a
- ---Sr--r-T root root data.(slamr|modem:)[0-9]
file in /var/lib/slmodem: maybe the slmodemd daemon is unable to access
that file a
On Sun, January 18, 2009 11:31 am, aelmahmo...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:07:48PM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
>> The process being unkillable is rather worrisome to me, and makes me
>> wonder if the privilege dropping is actually exposing a kernel bug. What
>> kernel v
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:07:48PM -0800, Corey Hickey wrote:
> The process being unkillable is rather worrisome to me, and makes me
> wonder if the privilege dropping is actually exposing a kernel bug. What
> kernel version are you using? I can try testing that and see if I still
> have the same p
On Sat, January 17, 2009 2:53 am, Ø£ØÙ
د اÙÙ
ØÙ
Ùد٠wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I cannot reproduce the same problem that you have encountered. I have
> a question though. Does that problem happen in older versions of
> sl-modem package (2.9.9d+e-pre2-10 or later) ?
I got the source for 2.9.9
Hello,
I cannot reproduce the same problem that you have encountered. I have
a question though. Does that problem happen in older versions of
sl-modem package (2.9.9d+e-pre2-10 or later) ?
If you can build binary package from source, then please try the package I
prepared at:
http://me
Package: sl-modem-daemon
Version: 2.9.11~20080817-1
Severity: important
Hello,
slmodemd from the Debian package doesn't work for me, and I can't seem to kill
the process, even with "kill -9". When I compile version 2.9.11 from upstream,
it works fine. I tracked the problem down to a particular pa
25 matches
Mail list logo
