On Thursday 27 January 2005 11:18, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a path, either direct, or
> > > > indirect between the secure net and the internet.
> > &g
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 13:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> > > This isn't relevant at all. The Navy doesn't have any secure
> > > systems connected to a netwo
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
[snip]
> > In this context, it doesn't make sense to deploy a protection A or B
> > without the companion protection, which is what I meant.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, D. Stimits wrote:
>When booting to a bzImage kernel, bytes 508 and 509 can be used to name
>the minor and major number of the intended root device (although it can
>be overridden with a command line parameter). Other characteristics are
>also available this way, through bytes
"Jim Roland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: "Jesse Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kurt Maxwell Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "J Sloan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>>I'll just have to decide which I value more. As long as I won't be killed
>>for using a different OS, I still have a choice.
>
>No, but you might be forced out of a job.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>On Sunday 01 July 2001 13:48, you wrote:
>> Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
>> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
>> > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
>> > Solaris, and the other op
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> --- Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "This is almost always the result of flakiness in
> > your hardware - eit
>
>
> "This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
> RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely). "
>
> I cannot understand this. There are many other
> stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. A
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:04:02PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > andrew may wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a standard way to make multiple copies of a network device?
> > >
> > > For things like the bonding/ipip/ip_gre and others they seem to
>
> On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > > > I am trying to change the spin rate of my IDE DVD-ROM drive. My system is
> > > > an Apple PowerBook G4, and I am using kernel 2.4. I want the drive to
> > > > spin at 1X when I watch mov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner):
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >By author:Jorgen Cederlof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been
> >> chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under
> >> the new root, it should be perfectly
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 25 June 2001 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> > I learnt my computing on a PDP8/E with papertape punch/reader, RALF,
> > Fortran II, then later 2.4Mb removable cartridges (RK05 I think). toggling
> > in the bootstrap improved your concentration. M
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > "Pete" == Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roland> The rough idea is that WSD is a new user space library
> Roland> that looks at sockets calls and decides if they have to go
> Roland> through the usual kernel
Rick Hohensee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
> > >2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
> > >already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
> > >
> > > forget POSIX
> > > The standards that matter are
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has
>already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine.
>
>The "thou shalt not fork" commandment made sense at one point, when free
>unix was a lost tribe wandering hungry in
- Received message begins Here -
>
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> >
> > The GPL license reproduced below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the Linux kernel is copyrighted by me and othe
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 17:20, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > Rob Landley writes:
> > > My only real gripe with Linux's threads right now [...] is
> > > that ps and top and such aren't thread aware and don't group them
> > > right.
> > >
> > > I'm told they ad
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite le
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Cleanup is a nice idea , but Linux should support old hardware and should
> not affect them in any way.
>
> Jaswinder.
I agree - and added my comments below.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Linux
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
>
> >> Is it possible by any means to isolate any given process, so that
> >> it'll be unable to crash system.
> > You just gave a nice description what an OS kernel should do :)
>
Ishikawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Anyway, this time, here is what was printed on the screen (the tail end
> of it).
> --- begin quote ---
> ... could not record the above. they scrolled up and disapper...
> Out of Memory: Killed process 4550 (XF8_SVGA.ati12).
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocat
Bob Glamm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Finally, there has to be an *easy* way of identifying devices from software.
> You're right, I don't care if my network cards are numbered 0-1-2, 2-0-1,
> or in any other permutation, *as long as I can write something like this*:
>
> # start up networking
> f
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > IIRC, the 6 character linker requirement came from when the Bell Labs folk
> > ported the C compiler the IBM mainframe world, not from the early UNIX (tm)
> > world. During the original ANSI C meetings, I got the sense from the IBM rep,
>
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>On Sun, 13 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> > > root@kama3:/home/szabi# cat /proc/mounts
>> > > /dev/hdb2 /usr ext2 rw 0 0
>> > > root@kama3:/home/szabi# swapon /dev/hdb2
>> >
>> > - Doctor, it hurts when I do it!
>> > - Don't do it, then.
>> >
>> > Just
"Joel Beach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Until three or four weeks ago, I have been running kernel 2.4.2 with no
> problems. However, my hard disk now seems to be playing up. In my system log, I
> get the following messages.
>
> May 3 08:13:14 kinslayer kernel: hda: dma_intr: error=0x40 {
>
On Sat, 05 May 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>kspamd/H3sm is now making continuous writes to tty1 from an
>in-kernel thread. It was locking on a write to /dev/console by
>init, so I made /dev/console a plain file. This is after
>hollowing out sys_syslog to be a null routine, and various
>other min
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> > Doesn't this bypass all of the network security controls? Granted
> - it is
> > completely reasonable in a dedicated environment, but I would
> think the
> > security loss would prevent it from being used for most usag
> > Define 'direct sockets' firstly.
> Direct Sockets is the ablity by which the application(using sockets)
> can use the hardwares features to provide connection, flow control,
> etc.,instead of the TCP and IP software module. A typical hardware
> technology is Infiniband . In Infini
Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am trying to add a process which is to be managed by init. I have added the
> following entry to /etc/inittab
>
> SV:2345:respawn:env - PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin svscan /service
> dev/console
>
> After saving, I execute the following command:
Tim Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:37, you wrote:
> > Personally, I think
> >>proc_printf(fragment, "%d %d",get_portnum(usbdev), usbdev->maxchild);
> > is shorter (and faster) to parse with
> > fscanf(input,"%d %d",&usbdev,&maxchild);
>
> Right, but what happe
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > for those who didn't read that patch, i #define capable(),
> > > suser(), and fsuser() to 1. the implication is all users
> > > will have root capabilities.
> >
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wednesday 25 April 2001 19:10, you wrote:
> > The command
> > more foo/* foo/*/*
> > will display the values in the foo subtree nicely, I think.
>
> Unfortunately it displays only the values. Dumping numbers and strings
> without know
- Received message begins Here -
>
> > 1. email -> sendmail
> > 2. sendmail figures out what it has to do with it. turns out it's deliver
> ...
>
> > Now, in order for step 4 to be done safely, procmail should be running
> > as the user it's meant to deliver the mail for. for
Tomas Telensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tomas Telensky wrote:
> >
> > > of linux distributions the standard daemons (httpd, sendmail) are run as
> > > root! Having multi-user system or not! Why? For only listening to a port
> > > <1
Olaf Titz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ehh.. I will bet you $10 USD that if libc allocates the next file
> > descriptor on the first "malloc()" in user space (in order to use the
> > semaphores for mm protection), programs _will_ break.
>
> Of course, but this is a result from sloppy coding. In gener
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Jesse Pollard replies:
> to Leif Sawyer who wrote:
> >> Besides, what would be gained in making the counters RO, if
> >> they were cleared every time the module was loaded/unloaded?
> >
> > 1. Knowl
Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And that introduces errors in measurement. It also depends on
> > how frequently an uncontroled process is clearing the counters.
> > You may never be able to get a valid measurement.
>
> This is true. Which is why application programmers need to write
> cod
Brunet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >>I suppose that running the child first also has a minor
> >> advantage for clone() in that it should make programs that spawn lots
> >> of threads to do little bits of work behave better on machines with a
>
>
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> .. ie: cat /etc/printcap > /dev/lp0(or /dev/par0)
> gets me :
>
> /c#eodiecnyotai rhernili s to rpaemn
> s eehpo o-.ROLPR0 roif{\=sl:x
>
Leif Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > From: Ian Stirling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Manfred Bartz responded to
> > > > Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who writes:
> >
> > > > You just illustrated my point. While there is a reset capability
> > > > people will use it and accounting/logging
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>>(There is no config file to disable/alter this .. no work-around that I
>>>know of ..)
>
>> You can't be serious. Go sit down and think about what's going on.
>
>Well, there are two potential solutions:
>
>a
kees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi
>
> Unix/Linux have a lot of daemons that have to run as root because they
> need to acces some specific data or run special programs. They are
> vulnerable as we learn.
> Is there any way to have something like an exec call that is
> subject to a sudo like permi
avid Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>one of the key places where the memory is 'allocated' but not used is in
>the copy on write conditions (fork, clone, etc) most of the time very
>little of the 'duplicate' memory is ever changed (in fact most of the time
>the program that forks then executes some oth
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I just made a manipulation that disturbs me. So I'm asking whether it's a
> bug or a features.
>
> user> su
> root> echo "test" > test
> root> ls -l
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root5 Mar 29 19:14 test
> root> exit
> us
Walter Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[snip]
> > Now, if ELF were to be modified, I'd just add a segment checksum
> > for each segment, then put the checksum in the ELF header as well as
> > in the/a segment header just to
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 03.29 Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > The penetration occurred because somebody changed our firewall
> > configuration
> > so that all of the non-DHCP addresses, i.e., all the real IP addresses had
> > complete
> > connectivity to the outside world.
Guest section DW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
>
> > The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out
> > when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow
> > the plane to become overlo
Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > My suggestion would be to add a filesystem label (optional) to the
> > homeblock of all filesystmes, then load that identifier into the
> > /proc/partitions file. This would allow a search to locate the
> > device parameters for any filesystem being mounte
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:40:42AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Now, if ELF were to be modified, I'd just add a segment checksum
> > for each segment, then put the checksum in the ELF header as well as
> > in the/a segmen
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:15:57AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > objcopy - copies object files. Object files are not marked executable...
>
> objcopy copies executable files as well - check the kernel makefiles
> for examples.
At th
Sean Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
> > but I don't
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
> &g
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> > >Any idea?
> >
> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly
> > but I don'
Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 06:08:15 -0600,
> Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow
> >ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits
>
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
>
> ftp FROM 2.4.2 ix86 machine to system with true 64-bit or otherwise no 2GB limit
> system complains that the file size is too large.
>
> [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
>
> On the 2.4.2 ix86 machine doing put:
> ---
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Shawn Starr wrote:
>Well, why can't the ELF loader module/kernel detect or have some sort of
>restriction on modifying other/ELF binaries including itself from changing
>the Entry point?
>
>There has to be a way stop this. WHY would anyone want to modify the entry
>point anywa
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>> >
>> > > Another example: all the stupid pseudo-SCSI drivers that got their own
>> > > major numbers, and wanted their very own names in /dev. They are BAD for
>> > > the user. Install-
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > high-end-disks. Rather the reverse. I'm advocating the SCSI layer not
> > > hogging a major number, but letting low-level drivers get at _their_
> > > requests directly.
> >
> > A major for 'disk' generically make
Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:57:42PM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > Using similar numbers as presented. If we are working our way through
> > > every single block in a Pentabyte filesystem, and the blocksize is 512
> >
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:15:08AM -0800, LA Walsh wrote:
> > Now lets look at the sites want to process terabytes of
> > data -- perhaps files systems up into the Pentabyte range. Often I
> > can see these being large multi-node (think
LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > Compile option or not, 64-bit arithmetic is unacceptable on IA32. The
> > introduction of LFS was bad enough, we don't need yet another proof that
> > IA32 sucks. Especially when there *are* better alternatives.
> ===
> So if it is a
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>These are NOT the only 64 bit systems - Intel, PPC, IBM (in various guises).
>>If you need raw compute power, the Alpha is pretty good (we have over a
>>1000 in a Cray T3..).
>
>Best of all, the PowerPC and the POWER are binary-compatible to a very
>la
Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> >
> > Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:47:13AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > What do you mean by problems 5 years down the road? The real issue is that
> > > > this 32-bit bl
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 08:39:21AM -0800, LA Walsh wrote:
> > I vaguely remember a discussion about this a few months back.
> > If I remember, the reasoning was it would unnecessarily slow
> > down smaller systems that would never have block
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Paul Jakma wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Guest section DW wrote:
>
>> But yes, I am complaining because Linux by default is unreliable.
>
>no, your distribution is unreliable by default.
>
>> I strongly prefer a system that is reliable by default,
>> and I'll leave it to others
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Doug McNaught wrote:
>Gerhard Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Bob Lorenzini wrote:
>>
>> > I'm annoyed when persons post virus alerts to unrelated lists but this
>> > is a serious threat. If your offended flame away.
>>
>> This should be a wake up
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>> infinite storage. After all, earlier Unix flavours did not need
>> an OOM killer either, and my editor was not killed under Unix V6
>> on 64k when I started some other process.
>
>You were lucky. Its quite possible for V6 to kill processes when you run out
>
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>Jesse Pollard wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>> >"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are no
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001, Graham Murray wrote:
>"Mohammad A. Haque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> making a patch means you've modfied the source which you are not allowed
>> to do. The most you can do is report the bug through normal channels
>> (you dont even have priority in reporting bugs since y
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> > Not a chance. First your company must have at least 1500 licences and
> > you can't modify any code... which implies that you can't rebuild either...
>
> You can modify your compiler, so that it accepts patches (with no context)
>
Venkatesh Ramamurthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Please check out this article. Looks like microsoft know open source is the
> thing of the future. I would consider that it is a begining step for full
> blown GPL
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2692987,00.html
Not a ch
james rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
>
> > 2. Does linux have any problems with large (500GB+) NFS exports, how about
> > large files over NFS?
> >
> > 3. What filesystem would be best for such large volumes? We currently use
> > reirserfs on our internal
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, Tom Sightler wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I'm seeking information in regards to a large Linux implementation we are
>planning. We have been evaluating many storage options and I've come up
>with some questions that I have been unable to answer as far as Linux
>capabilities in regards t
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You are reinventing the wheel.
> > man ptrace (see PTRACE_{PEEK,POKE}{TEXT,DATA} and PTRACE_{ATTACH,CONT,DETACH})
>
> With ptrace data will be copied twice. As far as I understood, Jeremy
> wants to
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> |> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Andreas Schwab
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |> > Paul Flinders <[EMAI
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Andreas Schwab
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> |> Andreas Schwab wrote:
> |>
> |> > This [isspace('\r') == 1] has no significance here. The right thing to
> |>
> |> > look at is $IFS, whic
John Kodis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 08:40:22AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > Somebody must have missed the boat entirely. Unix does not, never
> > has, and never will end a text line with '\r'.
>
> Unix does not, never has, and never will end a text line with ' ' (
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
>
>> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
>> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
>> repeated exposition to Linux...
>> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-990
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:51:15PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:59:24AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > What I said is that I can write this C code:
> > >
> > > int x[2], * p = (int *) (((char *) &x)+1);
> > > main
"Jonathan Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help
> to make code so much easier to read.
>
> One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally don't like the undersc
Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > >microseconds/yield
> > > # threads 2.2.16-22 2.42.4-multi-queue
> > > - ---
> > > 16 18.7404.603 1.455
> >
> > I reme
- Received message begins Here -
>
> This is more a Unix API question than a Linux question.
>
> I hope the issue is interesting enough to be of interest to some of you.
>
> Basically, I am writing an init which features process watching
> capabilities. My init has a managem
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > DN_OPEN A file in the directory was opened
> > >
> > > You open the top level directory and register for events. When somebody
> > > opens a subdirectory of the top level directory, you
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > This may be the most significant new feature in 2.4.0, as it allows us
> > > to take a fundamentally different approach to many differen
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> > Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> > after the rmdir...
>
> No, it couldn't (if you can show a testcase when it would - please do, you've
> found a bug). M
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Michael D. Crawford" wrote:
> >
> > Regarding notification when there's a change to the filesystem:
> >
> > This is one of the most significant things about the BeOS BFS filesystem, and
> > something I'd dearly love to see Linux adopt. It makes an app ver
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Hello Al,
>
> why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
> `rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
> may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001, Gunther Mayer wrote:
>Jesse Pollard wrote:
>> Originally, (wayback machine on) this was handled by a pull-up resistor
>> in the parallel interface, on the "off-line" signal. ANY time the printer
>> was powered off, set offline, or cable unplugge
- Received message begins Here -
Tim Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:39:10PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > As noted yesterday falling into parport_write will silenty lose data when the
> > printer is off.
>
> (Actually it depends; I think FIFO/DMA
- Received message begins Here -
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > x()
> > > {
> > >
> > > switch (1) {
> > > case 0:
> > > case 1:
> >
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have been struggling for a few months to get some internet servers
> to use 3-4 NICs effectively. I want to bind deamons to their own
> NIC so they are used independently. This is all IP software and i can get
> software to bind to these IPs (usually as standalone dae
Jean-Marc Saffroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It looks like the rmdir syscall behaves strangely in 2.4 kernels :
>
> saffroy@sisley:~> uname -a
> Linux sisley 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
> saffroy@sisley:/tmp> mkdir foo
> saffroy@sisley:/tmp> rmdir foo/.
> saffroy@
Josue Emmanuel Amaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This subject came up in the Generalized Kernel Hooks Interface thread, since it
> is an area of interest to me I wanted to continue that conversation.
>
> While I do not think it would be productive to enter a discussion whether there
> is a need to for
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:40:42PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>>
>>
>> >We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
>>
>> > -O QueueLA=20
>>
>> >and
>>
>> > -O RefuseLA=18
>>
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:20:22PM +0200, Andrea Pintori wrote:
> I've a Debian dist, Kernel 2.2.17, no patches, all packages are stable.
>
> here what I found:
>
> [/tmp] mkdir old
> [/tmp] chdir old
> [/tmp/old] mv . ../new
> [/tmp/old](should be /tmp/new !!)
> [/tmp/old] m
Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:44:11AM +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> > > Sounds great; unfortunately, the core group has spoken out against a
> > > modular kernel.
> > >
> > > Perhaps IBM shou
--
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
[snip]
> > You could ask, so what's the point for non-overcommit if we use
> > process killing in the end? And the answer, in *practise* this almost
> > never happens, root can always clean up and n
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:25:56AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > > If the compiler always aligned all functions and data on 16 byte
> > > boundries (NetWare) for all i386 code, it wou
From: Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:01:02 -0600 (CST),
> Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Enough people have asked for persistent module storage to at least
> >> ju
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
