On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:50:29PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> Floating point on ARM is indeed something of a crock, but that particular case
> used to work -- can you tell where it's going wrong? See entry-armv.S,
> about line 680, for the very bad hack that was supposed to facilitate this
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, various people (Ion, David, James) wrote:
>Recent versions of modutils .. log to .. /var/log/ksymoops
>kmod only works when the user calles for the service ..
>consider unix.o
I'm still using 2.2 kernel where unix.o isn't a module and
/var/log/ksymoops doesn't exist, so I supp
Hello Wichert ,
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:43:29AM -0700, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> > On 6 Apr 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Mr. James W. Laferriere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Not the prob
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:43:29AM -0700, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
>
> Hello Wichert ,
>
> On 6 Apr 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mr. James W. Laferriere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Not the problem being discussed , This is a user now r
Hello Wichert ,
On 6 Apr 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mr. James W. Laferriere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not the problem being discussed , This is a user now root &
> > having gained root is now attempting to from the command line
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mr. James W. Laferriere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not the problem being discussed , This is a user now root &
> having gained root is now attempting to from the command line
> to load a module . How do we get this event recorded ?
Recent vers
>I'm not wonderfully impressed with the way that you can't load the FPU
>emulation module on ARM at the moment without having some form of FPU
>emulation in your kernel already, either :)
Floating point on ARM is indeed something of a crock, but that particular case
used to work -- can you tell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Is there a good reason why insmod should not call syslog() to log any
> module that gets installed ? I know things like bttv get very verbose
> in the module itself, and I tried patching insmod to log the first
> argument and it seemed to work for me.
Consider "insmod
Hello Ion ,
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Why do it from user space? Simply add a printk() to sys_init_module() or
> > similar.
> Agreed, but at that point the solution has absolutely nothing to do with
> insmod anymore. :-)
>
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Why do it from user space? Simply add a printk() to sys_init_module() or
> similar.
Agreed, but at that point the solution has absolutely nothing to do with
insmod anymore. :-)
Besides, as you said, I don't really see the point. It certainly doesn
Ion writes:
> Andrew Daviel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a good reason why insmod should not call syslog() to log
> > any module that gets installed ?
>
> Simple: you'll have quite a bit of a problem if you are trying to insmod
> the module with support for AF_UNIX sockets. :-)
Why d
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Daviel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a good reason why insmod should not call syslog() to log
> any module that gets installed ?
Simple: you'll have quite a bit of a problem if you are trying to insmod
the module with support for AF_UNIX s
Is there a good reason why insmod should not call syslog() to log
any module that gets installed ? I know things like bttv get very verbose
in the module itself, and I tried patching insmod to log the first
argument and it seemed to work for me.
I was looking at the knark LKM rootkit and wonderi
13 matches
Mail list logo
