Re: Help with Linux on sparc64
On 7/31/07, Rami Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Nadav, What binary distribution has the best support for Sun machines? The first distribution which was equipped with support for Sun SPARC64 is Ubuntu; this happened after some attempts to boot Fedora Core (by Dave Miller and others) failed giving panic. This of course does not imply the Ubuntu is the best one , but it is the most veteran in this field. So I suggest you try it (you can try Ubuntu live-cd first to see what are the results). That's a very dangerous statement - I've installed at least 3 linux distros on my 64-bit ultra5 years before Ubuntu was created. Granted, one of them was debian :-) but after boot the keyboard stops working (It only has USB keyboardmouse). to make sure this keyboard is identified please try : tail -f /var/log/messages, and then unplug the USB keyboard and plug it back in. Do you see any messages ? Regards, Rami Rosen On 7/26/07, Nadav Shemer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have a Sun Ultra 45 and I've tried (unsuccessfully) to install some kind of Linux distribution on it. I've tried Debian netinst (both stable and testing) and Gentoo (stage2) CDs, but after boot the keyboard stops working (It only has USB keyboardmouse). Booting from the serial console, It hangs with the following message: su: Cannot register IRQ 1 Has anyone had any luck with this particular machine? What binary distribution has the best support for Sun machines? Can anyone help me? Nadav Shemer Tehuti Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Help with Linux on sparc64
Hello, I've installed at least 3 linux distros on my 64-bit ultra5 years before Ubuntu was created Regarding ultra5 - you are right. The Ubuntu distribution was to first to run on a Niagra SPARC64 machines. I should have mention this. Regards, Rami Rosen On 7/31/07, Mike Tewner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/31/07, Rami Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Nadav, What binary distribution has the best support for Sun machines? The first distribution which was equipped with support for Sun SPARC64 is Ubuntu; this happened after some attempts to boot Fedora Core (by Dave Miller and others) failed giving panic. This of course does not imply the Ubuntu is the best one , but it is the most veteran in this field. So I suggest you try it (you can try Ubuntu live-cd first to see what are the results). That's a very dangerous statement - I've installed at least 3 linux distros on my 64-bit ultra5 years before Ubuntu was created. Granted, one of them was debian :-) but after boot the keyboard stops working (It only has USB keyboardmouse). to make sure this keyboard is identified please try : tail -f /var/log/messages, and then unplug the USB keyboard and plug it back in. Do you see any messages ? Regards, Rami Rosen On 7/26/07, Nadav Shemer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. I have a Sun Ultra 45 and I've tried (unsuccessfully) to install some kind of Linux distribution on it. I've tried Debian netinst (both stable and testing) and Gentoo (stage2) CDs, but after boot the keyboard stops working (It only has USB keyboardmouse). Booting from the serial console, It hangs with the following message: su: Cannot register IRQ 1 Has anyone had any luck with this particular machine? What binary distribution has the best support for Sun machines? Can anyone help me? Nadav Shemer Tehuti Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu Internet Dialer
On 31/07/07, Michael Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday July 25 2007, Noam Rathaus wrote: Anyone with a GUI that does PPP or PPPOE? I tied the network button of Gkrellm to pon/poff. Not a pppoe-specific gui, but exactly what I wanted. Which reminds me - I've seen high praise for GNOME Network-Manager (can be used under other desktop environments). I never used it but maybe it's an option. Here is the home page: http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/ --Amos
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:32:29PM +1000, Amos Shapira wrote: Hello, Is it possible to dynamically add a system call (e.g. by a kernel module)? No. As far as I'm familiar with the kernel internals I'd say that the answer is no but just in case I missed something I would like to hear from the experts. I know that system calls are identified by numbers which are basically indexes into the sys_call_table array which seems to be compiled statically with the kernel source, and I can't find anywhere any internal kernel API which changes this table. Correct so far. The goal of this is that I'd like to add a way to do kernel-level operation (e.g. given a file name, do a special filesystem operation on it) which is most natural to do by inventing a new system call. I don't expect my code to get integrated into the kernel (not at initial stage, at least) but I'd still like to make it possible for users to say uhh ohh, I'd like to make this operation now, without having to reboot to a special kernel and be able to download/compile/install a kernel module which will enable this operation. There is no way to do this operation any other way than to add some kernel-level code (there is no way to achieve this through existing system calls or other kernel code). Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). That's (one of) the usual ways of doing it. Note that only a subset of the operations available in the kernel are exported to modules - if what you want to do is interesting enough, you may want to consider doing it as a patch to the kernel and avoiding external modules. Remember kids, external modules are second class citizens. Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
Amos Shapira wrote: Hello, Is it possible to dynamically add a system call (e.g. by a kernel module)? The goal of this is that I'd like to add a way to do kernel-level operation (e.g. given a file name, do a special filesystem operation on it) which is most natural to do by inventing a new system call. I don't expect my code to get integrated into the kernel (not at initial stage, at least) but I'd still like to make it possible for users to say uhh ohh, I'd like to make this operation now, without having to reboot to a special kernel and be able to download/compile/install a kernel module which will enable this operation. Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). Either that or just write a new virtual file system :-) Anyway, you're doing the right thing. Just supply a userspace library that wraps the /dev, /proc or your new file virtual system operation for the user amnd implement you system call as a library function in it. Later, when/if your new system call will get accepted into the mainline kernel and integrated into glibc and friends he interface can remain the same for the application, modulo not requiring your interface library. Cheers, Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm) http://www.codefidence.com Phone: +972.3.7515563 ext. 201 | Cellular: +972.52.8260388 SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +972.3.7515503 Lacking fins or tail the gefilte fish swims with great difficulty. -- A Jewish Haiku = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
Amos Shapira wrote: Hello, Is it possible to dynamically add a system call (e.g. by a kernel module)? Sure it is. Now for the more important questions: 1. Is it easy? 2. Is it worth the hassle? Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). why not do it the way it's meant to be done, using a custom device? That's the straight forward way. If you really really must put in a new syscall, this is the ugly hack you can do. Note that you may never ever ever unload this hack, no matter what you do. Here goes: Install your own interrupt handler on the syscall interrupt number (memory serve me right, this is 80 on i386 for Linux). Filter out your own syscall number, pick a syscall number that will never be used by anyone in the foreseeable future, and if it's not it, call the original handler. If you want my advice - go with an ioctl and a custom device. It's documented, non-hackish, allows unload and is future proof. Thanks, --Amos Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:10:05AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: Anyway, you're doing the right thing. Just supply a userspace library that wraps the /dev, /proc or your new file virtual system operation for the user amnd implement you system call as a library function in it. Later, when/if your new system call will get accepted into the mainline kernel and integrated into glibc and friends he interface can remain the same for the application, modulo not requiring your interface library. This approach is potentially problematic, We've had bad experiences with this approach, e.g., with libsysfs, but we've also had good experiences with it, e.g., with the IB verbs libraries. The really right thing to do is to get the system call upstream first, if at all possible... On the other hand, if you're just doing an in-house thing where the kernel module and the application matters, it doesn't matter very much, except getting it upstream should cut your maintenance costs over the long run by orders of magnitude. Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:30:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). why not do it the way it's meant to be done, using a custom device? That's the straight forward way. Because if it's logically a file operation that can be applied to any file, it makes sense for the interface to apply to a file, i.e., a system call that take an fd. If you really really must put in a new syscall, this is the ugly hack you can do. Note that you may never ever ever unload this hack, no matter what you do. Here goes: Install your own interrupt handler on the syscall interrupt number (memory serve me right, this is 80 on i386 for Linux). Filter out your own syscall number, pick a syscall number that will never be used by anyone in the foreseeable future, and if it's not it, call the original handler. phrack is that way. You can do anything in CPL 0. That doesn't mean you should actually do it! Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On 31/07/07, Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's (one of) the usual ways of doing it. Note that only a subset of the operations available in the kernel are exported to modules - if what you want to do is interesting enough, you may want to consider doing it as a patch to the kernel and avoiding external modules. Remember kids, external modules are second class citizens. Thanks for the heads-up. Will try to remember it when I actually get to implement this. Cheers, --Amos
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On 31/07/07, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amos Shapira wrote: Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). why not do it the way it's meant to be done, using a custom device? That's the straight forward way. What do you mean by custom device? Install your own interrupt handler on the syscall interrupt number (memory serve me right, this is 80 on i386 for Linux). Filter out your Thanks but no thanks - my goal in this experiment (besides doing some kernel hacking) is to help people, not put new obstacles on their path to heavenly Linux experience :) Cheers, --Amos
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On 31/07/07, Ravid Baruch Naali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I missed understood one thing do you want to add a system call to any file descriptor or just have a way to inquire some data or operate from/on the kernel? The ideal system call interface would take an open file descriptor and an additional parameter and operate on the open file descriptor. Barring that, I suppose the ioctl will take the file descriptor and the other parameter inside a struct pointed to by the ioctl parameter. Thanks, --Amos
Re: Ubuntu Internet Dialer
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 16:40 +1000, Amos Shapira wrote: On 31/07/07, Michael Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday July 25 2007, Noam Rathaus wrote: Anyone with a GUI that does PPP or PPPOE? I tied the network button of Gkrellm to pon/poff. Not a pppoe-specific gui, but exactly what I wanted. Which reminds me - I've seen high praise for GNOME Network-Manager (can be used under other desktop environments). I never used it but maybe it's an option. I'm using NetworkManager for a long time, and it is not a desktop specific tool - it has interfaces for both GNOME and KDE, and I think for XFCE4 as well. Its a great tool for managing dynamic network interfaces on desktop machines, and with the correct integration it can also be used to setup VPNs and modem dialing, but I had no success using it to control broadband dialers (DSL and cable). -- Oded = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
Amos Shapira wrote: On 31/07/07, Ravid Baruch Naali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I missed understood one thing do you want to add a system call to any file descriptor or just have a way to inquire some data or operate from/on the kernel? The ideal system call interface would take an open file descriptor and an additional parameter and operate on the open file descriptor. Barring that, I suppose the ioctl will take the file descriptor and the other parameter inside a struct pointed to by the ioctl parameter. Thanks, --Amos It's a POSIX matter when you open a file (being a block device or any other) you get a file descriptor which is an index to an array which holds pointers which in turns point to a vnode in the kernel, which among other things point to the sys call specific implementation. ioctl is one such sys call which operate according to it's parameters, one of them is the ioctl number. when you customize or develope your own device you can add to the function ioctl any functionality you desire. Sorry if all that I wrote so far is obvious, but continuing from here, if you follow Gilad's suggestion, you may build your module (load it when required) and use it as a back door to the kernel, one of the parameters you want to give it is the file descriptor you wish to inquire about. wrapping it all in shared object which you will load with your application or an executable which can be executed from the shell, you can make it look like a sys call. -- Ravid Baruch Naali E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 052-5830021
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On 31/07/07, Ravid Baruch Naali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a POSIX matter when you open a file (being a block device or any other) you get a file descriptor which is an index to an array which holds pointers which in turns point to a vnode in the kernel, which among other things point to the sys call specific implementation. ioctl is one such sys call which operate according to it's parameters, one of them is the ioctl number. when you customize or develope your own device you can add to the function ioctl any functionality you desire. Sorry if all that I wrote so far is obvious, but continuing from here, if you follow Gilad's suggestion, you may build your module (load it when required) and use it as a back door to the kernel, one of the parameters you want to give it is the file descriptor you wish to inquire about. wrapping it all in shared object which you will load with your application or an executable which can be executed from the shell, you can make it look like a sys call. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at - I know what's ioctl. The point is that the first parameter to the call will have to be the file descriptor of the device in order to trigger my new version of ioctl, but I want the call to operate on a completely different file descriptor (one which by definition isn't open to this special device), that's why I think I'll have to pass it some other way, maybe as a field in a struct pointed to by the third parameter to ioctl. Cheers, --Amos
RE: webcam security software
Try zoneminder (might be an over kill) or motion (has a builtin web server) Works both quite well Ohad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hetz Ben Hamo Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Israel Linux Mailing list Subject: Re: webcam security software It really depends how do you access this webcam. If it had a V4L/V4L2 interface, then the v4l userspace application package has a program which is called webcam which just exactly what you want. If you access it through http for example, then you can use wget in a cron and be done with it. Thanks, Hetz On 7/22/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for a program that runs under Linux that will once a minute connect to a webcam and save a frame. It can be just the single frame saver as I can run it in a loop or with cron. The Webcam is a stand alone device, not a V4L device. I need it for a home grown security system. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Skepticism is the lazy person's default position. Visit my blog (hebrew) for things that (sometimes) matter: http://wp.dad-answers.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: webcam security software
I second the recommendation on motion. It works great with cheap webcams, and is higly customizable. On 7/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try zoneminder (might be an over kill) or motion (has a builtin web server) Works both quite well Ohad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hetz Ben Hamo Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Israel Linux Mailing list Subject: Re: webcam security software It really depends how do you access this webcam. If it had a V4L/V4L2 interface, then the v4l userspace application package has a program which is called webcam which just exactly what you want. If you access it through http for example, then you can use wget in a cron and be done with it. Thanks, Hetz On 7/22/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for a program that runs under Linux that will once a minute connect to a webcam and save a frame. It can be just the single frame saver as I can run it in a loop or with cron. The Webcam is a stand alone device, not a V4L device. I need it for a home grown security system. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Skepticism is the lazy person's default position. Visit my blog (hebrew) for things that (sometimes) matter: http://wp.dad-answers.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: webcam security software
vidcat (probably with a 2 line cgi script) cheers, erez. On 7/31/07, Alon Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second the recommendation on motion. It works great with cheap webcams, and is higly customizable. On 7/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try zoneminder (might be an over kill) or motion (has a builtin web server) Works both quite well Ohad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hetz Ben Hamo Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Israel Linux Mailing list Subject: Re: webcam security software It really depends how do you access this webcam. If it had a V4L/V4L2 interface, then the v4l userspace application package has a program which is called webcam which just exactly what you want. If you access it through http for example, then you can use wget in a cron and be done with it. Thanks, Hetz On 7/22/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for a program that runs under Linux that will once a minute connect to a webcam and save a frame. It can be just the single frame saver as I can run it in a loop or with cron. The Webcam is a stand alone device, not a V4L device. I need it for a home grown security system. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Skepticism is the lazy person's default position. Visit my blog (hebrew) for things that (sometimes) matter: http://wp.dad-answers.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
On 31/07/07, Ravid Baruch Naali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with that method I only suggested (and I think that's what Gilad has recomended) that you hide it using a user space library which will grub the ioctl function. In other word you will call ioctl(fakedfd, data_struct) when the fakefd is the one not open for that special device and the structure will contain the exact operation parameters. Your user space library will then convert the ioctl parameters accordingly and will now call the ioctl with the device file descriptor which it already opened (and maybe even loaded), and in the extra parameters the fakefd will be passed. Just an idea but if you need more details don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for the idea. I don't see the point of hiding things behind a new ioctl libc interface - I'll just invent a new library call which will be implemented using ioctl for now and if/when my code gets into the kernel as a new system call then this library call will get implemented using that. Cheers, --Amos
Re: dynamically adding a system call?
Amos Shapira wrote: On 31/07/07, Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amos Shapira wrote: Currently my plan is to add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). why not do it the way it's meant to be done, using a custom device? That's the straight forward way. What do you mean by custom device? It means exactly what you were thinking of: add a special file under /proc or /dev which any program will be able to open and then pass the arguments through ioctl(2). I missed understood one thing do you want to add a system call to any file descriptor or just have a way to inquire some data or operate from/on the kernel? a custom device/loadable module can be loaded and unloaded without rebooting, and by using the current set of system calls (especially ioctl) you can implement those operations. on the other hand if you want this sys call to be available for any file descriptor hence any device, a change in the sys call structure will be required. But I'm just repeating what Gilad wrote in my words. Install your own interrupt handler on the syscall interrupt number (memory serve me right, this is 80 on i386 for Linux). Filter out your Thanks but no thanks - my goal in this experiment (besides doing some kernel hacking) is to help people, not put new obstacles on their path to heavenly Linux experience :) Cheers, --Amos -- Ravid Baruch Naali E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 052-5830021
