On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:04:47 +0400
Solar Designer wrote:
> To clarify and for the record:
>
> Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
> notification of security issues. The list is just a tool. People
> reporting security issues to the distros list are encouraged to also
>
Le 07/06/2014 05:41, Eric Furman a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 07:28 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Le 06/06/2014 12:47, Eric Furman a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014, at 04:20 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
On 06/06/2014 05:18 AM, Eric Furman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014, at 08:36 PM
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 09:13:36AM +0200, Francois Ambrosini wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 07:04:47 +0400
> Solar Designer wrote:
>
> > Being on the distros list is not mandatory to receive advance
> > notification of security issues. The list is just a tool. People
> > reporting security issues
On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
> Dear misc readers,
>
> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
> can manually create some dev with mknod .
>
> Like:
> SCRIPT ${DESTDIR}/dev/MAKEDEV dev/MAKEDEV
> SPECIAL cd dev; sh MAKEDEV ramdisk
> sh: [1]: mkno
On 07 Jun 2014, at 08:38, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Contributing code upstream would have been a way more productive
> approach;
It's already been stated that working with upstream is out of
the question for at least the following reasons:
* Bugs linger unattended for years.
* The code style is
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>> Dear misc readers,
>>
>> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
>> can manually create some dev with mknod .
>>
>> Like:
>> SCRIPT ${DESTDIR}/dev/MAKEDEV
Em 07-06-2014 03:38, Maxime Villard escreveu:
> But the devs preferred to fork and now blame people. So, no, I don't
> think LibreSSL will prevail, simply because it has - and will have -
> nothing new and because it has no credibility.
You should really take a look at the source code. If you're si
On 06/06/2014 10:04 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> OpenBSD having declined to use the tool shouldn't be interpreted e.g. by
> OpenSSL as a reason not to notify LibreSSL directly.
It seems worth noting that OpenBSD 5.5, the current release that many
people are running, incorporates OpenSSL, not Libre
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
> >> Dear misc readers,
> >>
> >> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is failing inside my chroot, while i
> >> can manually create some de
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
>> wrote:
>> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>> >> Dear misc readers,
>> >>
>> >> I try to understand why MAKEDEV is
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:14:55PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wr
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuart Henderson
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 2014-06-06, sven falempin wrote:
>>> >> De
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Stuar
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:20:00AM -0400, sven fa
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:30:01PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven falempin
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:30 AM, O
previously on this list Giancarlo Razzolini contributed:
> > What gives LibreSSL more credibility? There's almost nothing new or
> > innovative in it; it's just a cleaned up copy of OpenSSL.
> You should do your homework.
Too right, also those previous two lines showed he has no clue about
real
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 01:30:01PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:28PM -0400, sven falempin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:14 PM, sven fal
I'm having troubles installing OpenBSD 5.5 (amd64) on a mSATA SSD card (
http://pcengines.ch/msata16a.htm) PC Engines APU.1C device (
http://pcengines.ch/apu.htm) with the most recent BIOS version.
I've made several attempts, using install55.fs copied to an SD card, with
both 5.5-release and 5.5-c
> >> Is this some kind of security protection ?
> >
> > of course... see mknod(2).
>
> i read it and still does not understand.
Check the description of EINVAL.
On 2014-06-07 12:51, JB M wrote:
I'm having troubles installing OpenBSD 5.5 (amd64) on a mSATA SSD card
(
http://pcengines.ch/msata16a.htm) PC Engines APU.1C device (
http://pcengines.ch/apu.htm) with the most recent BIOS version.
I've made several attempts, using install55.fs copied to an SD c
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> >> Is this some kind of security protection ?
>> >
>> > of course... see mknod(2).
>>
>> i read it and still does not understand.
>
> Check the description of EINVAL.
i was reading the (8) man pages :-(
So DESTDIR is nor working and make rel
# dmesg
console is /virtual-devices@100/console@1
Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 1995-2014 OpenBSD. All rights reserved.
http://www.OpenBSD.org
OpenBSD 5.5 (GENERIC.MP) #173: Tue Mar 4 14:47:47 MS
On 2014-06-07, Maxime Villard wrote:
> What gives LibreSSL more credibility? There's almost nothing new or
> innovative in it; it's just a cleaned up copy of OpenSSL. There might
> be some changes in the future, but you can be sure that LibreSSL will
> lag behind OpenSSL - and most of the code wil
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:51 PM, JB M wrote:
> I'm having troubles installing OpenBSD 5.5 (amd64) on a mSATA SSD card (
> http://pcengines.ch/msata16a.htm) PC Engines APU.1C device (
> http://pcengines.ch/apu.htm) with the most recent BIOS version.
>
> I've made several attempts, using install55.f
The description of EINVAL in mknod(2) is wrong:
[EINVAL] The process is running within an alternate root
directory, as created by chroot(2).
Even if a process chroot()s back to /, it can't create a device node.
The program below exits with EINVAL:
#include
I don't think there is a word for "chroot back". Once you limit yourself
into a chroot, you are stuck in it and get special treatment until you
exit. Apart from why mknod wants to fail inside chroots, having a simple
syscall being able to take you out of it would defeat the whole purpose, no?
20
26 matches
Mail list logo
