On 07/05/2011 08:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 19:37 +, Beartooth wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:44 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/30/2011 01:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> []
It's a secret :-) Seriously, I noticed it maybe a year
On 07/05/2011 08:37 PM, Beartooth wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:44 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2011 01:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> []
>>> It's a secret :-) Seriously, I noticed it maybe a year or so ago and
>>> have mentioned it several times on this and other
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 19:37 +, Beartooth wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:44 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>
> > On 06/30/2011 01:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> []
> >> It's a secret :-) Seriously, I noticed it maybe a year or so ago and
> >> have mentioned it several times on
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:57:44 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 01:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[]
>> It's a secret :-) Seriously, I noticed it maybe a year or so ago and
>> have mentioned it several times on this and other lists, but it's still
>> not well-known. It cer
On 06/30/2011 01:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 22:46 +, BeartoothHOS wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:38:34 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>> []
>>> Then you should know to run needs-restarting when it has finished to
>>> check for this yourself.
>>
>> Ma
On 06/30/2011 10:51 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> I'm using 3.0 kernel from rawhide - which had a new procps as a
> requirement - so its possible things have changed in /proc ... also this
> is systemd's area - its possible some capabilities are needed now which
> were not in the past ? Clearly th
On 06/29/2011 08:35 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>> From this we see:
>>
>>
>> $ ls -l /proc/1/smaps
>> 0 -r--r--r--. 1 root root 0 Jun 28 13:25 /proc/1/smaps
>>
>> $ cat /proc/1/smaps
>> cat: /proc/1/smaps: Permission denied
>>
>> So that is the source of the problem - tho it probably shou
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 09:15 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 06:01 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > print "pid: %s" % pid # add this line
>
> Great idea:
>
> ./needs-restarting
> pid: 1
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "./needs-restarting", line 138, in
> sys.exit(
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 22:46 +, BeartoothHOS wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:38:34 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> []
> > Then you should know to run needs-restarting when it has finished to
> > check for this yourself.
>
> Maybe the OP knows, but in thirteen years of running lin
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:38:34 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
[]
> Then you should know to run needs-restarting when it has finished to
> check for this yourself.
Maybe the OP knows, but in thirteen years of running linux
(almost all RedHat or clones) I've never heard of it. And g
On 06/29/2011 08:18 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Hmm, I just did a similar experiment. yum updated systemd and a couple
> of other things. Under my normal user n-r reports no changes. Running as
> root it reports:
>
> # needs-restarting
> 1 :
> /bin/systemd--log-levelinfo--log-targetsyslog-or
On 06/29/2011 06:01 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> print "pid: %s" % pid # add this line
Great idea:
./needs-restarting
pid: 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./needs-restarting", line 138, in
sys.exit(main(sys.argv))
File "./needs-restarting", line 118, in main
for fn in g
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:00 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 11:42 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 06/29/2011 11:21 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> >> But, it is interesting that it runs fast under the KDE's user and quick
> >> on the ssh user. Neither of which is in the wheel group.
> > I will have
On 06/29/2011 06:39 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 10:51 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>>
Works fine as root.
>>> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
>>> fr
On 06/29/2011 04:43 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 6/28/11 8:24 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 06/29/2011 11:18 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
>>> I was referring to /proc/ when that user did not 'own' the
>>> process. I'm under the impression that this is/was part of the security
>>> 'features' of Fedor
On 06/28/2011 10:51 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
>> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Works fine as root.
>> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
>> from what I remember. That is why root works and joe-blo
On 06/29/2011 11:42 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 11:21 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> But, it is interesting that it runs fast under the KDE's user and quick
>> on the ssh user. Neither of which is in the wheel group.
> I will have to remember this the next time packages are updated and I
> get
On 6/28/11 8:24 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 11:18 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
>> I was referring to /proc/ when that user did not 'own' the
>> process. I'm under the impression that this is/was part of the security
>> 'features' of Fedora Linux. I don't have a RH box to look at and verif
On 06/29/2011 11:21 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> But, it is interesting that it runs fast under the KDE's user and quick
> on the ssh user. Neither of which is in the wheel group.
I will have to remember this the next time packages are updated and I
get an indication that a logout/login is needed. I'
On 06/29/2011 11:18 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
> I was referring to /proc/ when that user did not 'own' the
> process. I'm under the impression that this is/was part of the security
> 'features' of Fedora Linux. I don't have a RH box to look at and verify.
Right Understand now
But, as
On 06/29/2011 11:12 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> Only if invoked with the '-u' option.
I said it was a "quick read"... :-)
But, it is interesting that it runs fast under the KDE's user and quick
on the ssh user. Neither of which is in the wheel group.
>> I ran it as a user running KDE...
On 6/28/11 8:04 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 10:51 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Works fine as root.
>>> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
>>> from what I remember.
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 10:51 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
> >> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >>> Works fine as root.
> >> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
> >
On 06/29/2011 10:51 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
>> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>> Works fine as root.
>> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
>> from what I remember. That is why root works and joe-blow does n
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 22:51 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
> > On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Works fine as root.
> > Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
> > from what I remember. That is why root w
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 19:13 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 06/28/2011 08:17 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>>Does this work as regular user for you? For me - selinux makes it
> >>> crash.
> >> run ausearch -m avc -ts recent
> >>
> >> And see if
On 06/28/2011 10:13 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> Works fine as root.
> Usually ordinary users are prohibited from accessing /proc/
> from what I remember. That is why root works and joe-blow does not.
>
> James McKenzie
>
I'm totally fine with
On 6/28/11 6:37 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 08:17 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>Does this work as regular user for you? For me - selinux makes it crash.
>> run ausearch -m avc -ts recent
>>
>> And see if it generates any output.
>>
>> SELinux error messages are written to /var/lo
On 06/28/2011 08:17 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> Does this work as regular user for you? For me - selinux makes it crash.
> run ausearch -m avc -ts recent
>
> And see if it generates any output.
>
> SELinux error messages are written to /var/log/audit/audit.log
>
>
>
Thanks Dan - Nope no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2011 01:49 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 12:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>
>> After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
>> processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
>> ab
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:29 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 09:41 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > If I had to pick out a single feature to demonstrate the superiority of
> > the Unix style of system, this would be it.
>
> De gustabus and all that jazz. I prefer to explain that Linux fil
On 06/28/2011 09:41 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> If I had to pick out a single feature to demonstrate the superiority of
> the Unix style of system, this would be it.
De gustabus and all that jazz. I prefer to explain that Linux file
systems never (well, almost never) need defragging because
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 12:01 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 09:22 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
> > processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
> > about this program.
>
> I do daily updates via
On 06/28/2011 02:46 PM, mike cloaked wrote:>
>
>
> So no selinux problems for me - this is in f14 32 bit.
>
> Or does it cause problems if there is a process that needs restarting?
>
Its 64 bit - and sealert is broken as well because of the libreport
"thing" ... I have run fixfiles restore ...
On 06/28/2011 09:22 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
> processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
> about this program.
I do daily updates via yumex. Long ago I learned that the included
Update Manager wa
On 06/28/2011 09:21 AM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> How could it be otherwise?
>
> If a file has been deleted, the proper thing would be for the running process
> to read the new copy into memory.
>
And how, pray tell, would the running process know that? In Unix and
L
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
>> processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
>> about this program.
>>
>
>
> Does this work as regular user for you? For me - selinux makes it
On 06/28/2011 08:59 AM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Could someone explain how reboots are not needed in Linux for updates to
> _take_, given the evidence to the contrary.
If I'm not mistaken (and I could be) mesa is part of the graphics
subsystem. If so, simply suspending your computer and com
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 13:49 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 12:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> >
> > After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
> > processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
> > about this program.
> >
>
>
>
On 06/28/2011 12:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> After updating, I always run needs-restarting to see what running
> processes are affected. I'm surprised more people don't seem to know
> about this program.
>
Does this work as regular user for you? For me - selinux makes it crash.
--
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:52:17AM -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:14 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > On 06/28/2011 05:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > On 06/28/2011 04:59 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> > >> It is common knowledge that one does not need to reboot fo
Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> Then you should know to run needs-restarting when it has finished to check
> for this yourself.
Thanks for the info. Finally, after so many years, I *do* understand how it is
meant that it is not required to reboot.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> The upshot is that if a process has a file open, and that file is
> replaced by a different one (using unlink and creat) then the process
> will continue to use the old file and all its attributes. When the
> process closes the file, or terminates, the reference disapp
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> needs-restarting
Never heard of it. I will definitely man it and add it to my repertory of
knowledge.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guideline
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 10:21 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > How could it be otherwise?
>
> If a file has been deleted, the proper thing would be for the running process
> to read the new copy into memory.
And how is the process supposed to know? As for as it's con
On 06/28/2011 05:18 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>
>> For a couple of releases now the graphical updater tools have supported
>> the ability to warn the user when this is the case. If you were using
>> these tools then you should have received such a warning.
>
> I run
On 06/28/2011 05:21 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> How could it be otherwise?
>
> If a file has been deleted, the proper thing would be for the running process
> to read the new copy into memory.
That's not always possible. It's certainly not possible if one of
the
Andrew Haley wrote:
> How could it be otherwise?
If a file has been deleted, the proper thing would be for the running process
to read the new copy into memory.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:14 +0100, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 05:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 06/28/2011 04:59 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> >> It is common knowledge that one does not need to reboot for updates to
> >> take
> >> effect in GNU Linux.
> >>
> >> However, in actu
Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> For a couple of releases now the graphical updater tools have supported
> the ability to warn the user when this is the case. If you were using
> these tools then you should have received such a warning.
I run yum from the command line, as I feel I have both more control a
On 06/28/2011 05:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 04:59 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>> It is common knowledge that one does not need to reboot for updates to take
>> effect in GNU Linux.
>>
>> However, in actual practice, this is not so. I could cite many examples, but
>> this shoul
On 06/28/2011 04:59 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> It is common knowledge that one does not need to reboot for updates to take
> effect in GNU Linux.
>
> However, in actual practice, this is not so. I could cite many examples, but
> this should suffice:
>
> On Sunday evening, I installed a n
It is common knowledge that one does not need to reboot for updates to take
effect in GNU Linux.
However, in actual practice, this is not so. I could cite many examples, but
this should suffice:
On Sunday evening, I installed a new updates-testing version of mesa and then I
suspended the machi
53 matches
Mail list logo
