Linux-Development-Sys Digest #203, Volume #7 Fri, 17 Sep 99 03:14:18 EDT
Contents:
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (bilge)
Minor device number in proc get_info() function? (Mark McDougall)
Re: porting unnamed structures (ellis)
Re: write / writev guaranteed autonomous? (David Schwartz)
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (bilge)
Re: help.. This should work but why doesn't it??? (write fnc in driver) (Keith
Wright)
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (bilge)
Re: Booting Linux on Sparc Classic using Null-Modem Connection for Console. (Pete
Zaitcev)
write / writev guaranteed autonomous? ("Glen Parker")
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (Joel Hanger)
Re: knfs error using SUN client on sockets (David T. Blake)
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (bilge)
Re: 497.2 days ought to be enough for everybody (Peter Samuelson)
Re: pci libraries (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (bilge)
Re: insmod & printf problem (Peter Samuelson)
Re: can't compile 2.1.59 (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Booting Linux on Sparc Classic using Null-Modem Connection for Console.
(Nicholas Dronen)
Re: getting 2.3.xx experimental kernel (Peter Samuelson)
Re: help.. This should work but why doesn't it??? (write fnc in driver) (Peter
Samuelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:23:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>Putting a law on the books doesn't mean anyone _cares_ about that law.
>I'll reverse-engineer as much as I want. If I sell something based on
>directly-lifted code, I would expect to be procescuted, otherwise I
>expect to be left alone.
>
>It's like radar detectors-once them radar beamies are in my airspace,
>as far as I'm concerned, they're mine.
>
That's fundaamentally my point of view as well, however you should
be aware of the DMA and make other aware too. I believe the
penalties for doing the above are as much as 5 years in a federal
prison - if you dont do it for profit. If you do, penalties increase.
The provision also includes providing any device for which the sole
purpose could be construed to be violating any mechanism used to
protect intellectual property contained in software, broadcasts, etc.
This includes discovering how the mechanism itself works.
------------------------------
From: Mark McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Minor device number in proc get_info() function?
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:35:12 +1000
Hi all,
A (hopefully) simple one this time. I have a driver that writes stats
etc out to the proc filesystem using the 'simple' method outlined in
Rubini.
Trouble is, my driver controls several devices and I have a proc dir
entry for each device (ie. each minor number). I need to know the minor
number of the device in the get_info() function so I can generate the
correct data page. Is there an easy way to do this?
At the moment I register X different functions that simply call a
generic get_info() function, passing the (hard-coded) minor number in
the 'int unused' parameter of the get_info() call. Surely there's a
better way???
Regards,
--
| Mark McDougall |
| Engineer |
| Virtual Logic Pty Ltd |
| http://www.vl.com.au |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ellis)
Subject: Re: porting unnamed structures
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:45:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Minnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>/*
>I have a ton of Windoz code to port Linux that uses unnamed structures
>with bit fields as follows:
>*/
>
>struct {
> struct {
> int foo:1;
> };
>} trouble;
>
>main()
>{
> /* compiler finds foo even though inside unnamed struct */
> trouble.foo = 1;
>}
>
>/*
>This compiles fine with MS VisualC++ but with gcc 2.91.66 I get:
>
>hello.c:4: warning: unnamed struct/union that defines no instances
>hello.c: In function `main':
>hello.c:9: structure has no member named `foo'
>
>I could of course name all the internal structures, but that means
>changing lots of code to:
>
>trouble.x.foo = 1;
>
>Any ideas anyone?
I ran into the same problem. The unamed struct "feature" is a
non-standard extension and isn't supported by gcc. I ended up
assigning names.
--
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/linux.html
------------------------------
From: David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: write / writev guaranteed autonomous?
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 19:04:23 -0700
You are asking for the nearly impossible.
Imagine if I do a 256Mb write to a file, on top of previous data. What
should happen if the process is killed at the 128Mb point?
To guarantee that the whole write succeeds, the OS would either have
to:
1) Save the old data that it wrote on top of somewhere so that it can
put it back in order to abort the write, and then put back 128Mb of data
when my process is killed.
2) Make a process unkillable until it completes a write call,
regardless of how long that might take. So my process will continue to
write another 128Mb before it gets stopped.
I think you can see that these two possibilities are much worse than
allowing writes to partially complete when a process is killed.
DS
Glen Parker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A little question about write* calls...
>
> If a process is -KILL'ed while in the middle of executing a write or writev
> call, what happens? Is the call guaranteed to either complete or not do
> anything? I'm pretty sure that write is safe, but what about writev?
>
> TIA
> Glen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] took the lawyer's side and said:
>> You havent read the digital millennium copyright act. It provides
>> for criminal penalties if you even interfere with the normal
>> functioning of the software as determined by the copyright holder.
>
>Putting a law on the books doesn't mean anyone _cares_ about that law.
>I'll reverse-engineer as much as I want. If I sell something based on
>directly-lifted code, I would expect to be procescuted, otherwise I
>expect to be left alone.
I'd appreciate you not misrepresenting a statement of fact as
my opinion. The DMA is a fact and I mentioned it as relevant
to a post to which I was responding. I am very much *opposed*
to the DMA. If you want to bitch and make accusations, look
up your damn congressman. It's easy enough for you to find out
his/her opinion and act accordingly. In my opinion, if people
are this unaware of it, I performed a service by mentioning
it, despite it being signed almost a year ago.
------------------------------
From: Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help.. This should work but why doesn't it??? (write fnc in driver)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:35:25 -0400
Julius Longauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The assignment works. After the assignment however write_buf doesn't
> point to the origninally allocated memory but to the first element
> of a static unnamed array of characters, which may be stored in
> read-only memory and has only enough space for the string
> "pre copy from us". This situation can result in protection faults
> and buffer-overflows.
Except he's in kernel mode. What does happen if you write to
a read-only page in ring zero mode? Maybe I'll try it,
on a scratch machine, just to see. (It can't be pretty,
whatever it is.)
--
-- Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:38:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joel Hanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>If Reverse Engineering is breaking the law then they who persecuting you
>have broken the law, for how is it that they know that you used their
>code without reverse engineering it??? The way I see it is that if you
>use someone elses code then how are they going to prosecute you when in
>doing so they have just admitted to breaking the law themselves?
How many examples of such practicess in long existing areas
of law enforcement would be required to convince you how
little their actions to prosecute you can negatively affect
their prosecution of you?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Booting Linux on Sparc Classic using Null-Modem Connection for Console.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Zaitcev)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:37:15 GMT
Paul J Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Wragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>--snip--
> David> can telnet into it, but since a telnet login won't accept
> David> root you are stuck.
>--snip--
>You can telnet in as a normal user and use "su -" to become root,
>environment and all.
Except there are no users after the installation, you must be
root to create users!
Actually, it seems that RH6.0 install image is broken, at least on
sparc64. "boot net", "boot net console=ttya" yeld this:
VFS: Mounted root (romfs filesystem).
Warning: unable to open an initial console.
After "boot net console=prom" the system starts, but it does not
accept any input and you are stuck at the welcome screen of the
installator.
I remember that RH5.2 worked fine.
--Pete
------------------------------
From: "Glen Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: write / writev guaranteed autonomous?
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:51:47 -0700
Hi,
A little question about write* calls...
If a process is -KILL'ed while in the middle of executing a write or writev
call, what happens? Is the call guaranteed to either complete or not do
anything? I'm pretty sure that write is safe, but what about writev?
TIA
Glen
------------------------------
From: Joel Hanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:02:44 -0700
==============7DBC1BD9A282A9A835167EC4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
bilge wrote:
> Joel Hanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>
> >If Reverse Engineering is breaking the law then they who persecuting you
> >have broken the law, for how is it that they know that you used their
> >code without reverse engineering it??? The way I see it is that if you
> >use someone elses code then how are they going to prosecute you when in
> >doing so they have just admitted to breaking the law themselves?
>
> How many examples of such practicess in long existing areas
> of law enforcement would be required to convince you how
> little their actions to prosecute you can negatively affect
> their prosecution of you?
>
Why is it so that Bill Gates can get away with such an offense without
punishment... such as did apple???
--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute,
and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty
girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.
THAT'S relativity."
Albert Einstein
==============7DBC1BD9A282A9A835167EC4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
bilge wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Joel Hanger [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
<P> >If Reverse Engineering is breaking the law then they who persecuting
you
<BR> >have broken the law, for how is it that they know that you used
their
<BR> >code without reverse engineering it??? The way I see it is that
if you
<BR> >use someone elses code then how are they going to prosecute
you when in
<BR> >doing so they have just admitted to breaking the law themselves?
<P> How many examples of such
practicess in long existing areas
<BR> of law enforcement would
be required to convince you how
<BR> little their actions to
prosecute you can negatively affect
<BR> their prosecution of you?
<BR> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Why is it so that Bill Gates can get away with such an offense without
punishment... such as did apple???
<PRE>--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute,
and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty
girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.
THAT'S relativity."
Albert Einstein</PRE>
</HTML>
==============7DBC1BD9A282A9A835167EC4==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Subject: Re: knfs error using SUN client on sockets
Date: 16 Sep 1999 14:54:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan Wielemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running a linux machine running linux-nfs-0.4.21 on top of 2.2.3
> kernel with SUN compatibility compiled in.
If you are serving nfs you are likely using either the userspace
server (nfs-server-2.something) or the knfsd kernel server.
Which is it ??
You indicate SUN compatibility is compiled in. Did you apply
the knfsd patches ??
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: 17 Sep 1999 05:12:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris J/#6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>Silly question - which country does this law exist? I'm UK based...is this
>a UK issue? Or is it stateside ?
>
Stateside.
>This is certainly an intriguing act - has it been tested in a real case
>yet or is it just there waiting for the lawyers to pounce ?
>
Not to the full draconian extent. I believe that jumping on the
the opportunuites to prosecute all at once would lose the effect
of gradual although grudging acceptance. Recently, however, the
no electronic theft act which was supposed to plug a hole in
copyright protection ffound a victim. Originally there was a
barrier to prosecution in that a violation required that the
potential violator be seeking to profit from the violation,
and have done so to the tune of > $1000.00. Now, you need only
copy software worth more than $1000.00. Since sun claimed copying
solaris source code was a theft of $80,000,000.00, I dont think
the price tag is much of an obstacle.
><satire>
>Does it also mean that if you modify Windows95 to the point that you
>purge out all the crap that isn't needed and afterwards it doesn't
>crash, you've breached the act? *grin*
></satire>
It could. I think it can also be used to prevent linux applications
which would read any proprietary document formats without licensing.
excerpt:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
work protected under this title.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: 497.2 days ought to be enough for everybody
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:00:34 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Anyway, thanks for all tips, the machine survived and is happily
> running. What I did was kill most unneeded processes except for sshd
> (so I could log in after the wraparound) and left for my holiday :>
Cool! Now don't forget everything we've told you; it may come in handy
in late January 2001. (:
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: pci libraries
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:07:46 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Lee Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> What is your take on the idea of linux having a standardized driver
> interface to allow 3rd party drivers that aren't dependent on a
> particular kernel version?
Would that be "your" plural, i.e. anyone? You can read my take in the
recent UDI thread ("Linux standards compliance", IIRC). Briefly:
defining such an interface is next to impossible without tradeoffs, to
wit: either horrid complexity or forced development stagnation.
Neither is worth it. I used to believe it was a good idea for The
Powers That Be to set a goal of binary compatibility across a stable
release cycle, but now I'm not sure even that is worth it. Recompiling
just ain't that hard, folks. If you use closed-source software, you
are making the choice to get bitten by this sort of thing sooner or
later. And it *is* a choice; nobody is *making* you buy an SBLive!.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: 17 Sep 1999 05:19:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Torsten Poulin [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
> "Copying of a software program's code and translation of the form
>of the code is legal when this is necessary to obtain the information
>necessary to achieve interoperability between an independently developed
>software program and other software programs [...]"
>
>It is interesting to note that these rights cannot be limited by
>agreement.
>
I belive you also have laws precluding software vendors from
installing "time bombs", vendor "self help" and the like in
software to disable software which has been "licensed" and
over which a dispute develops. All chances for that here have
been lost as well, with the passage of UCITA.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: insmod & printf problem
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:14:27 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I am writing a kernel module and I am able to compile & link the
> module without any problems. But when I do an insmod <module-name>, I
> get the following error: "unresolved symbol printk_R1b7d4074".
#ifdef MODVERSIONS
#include <linux/modversions.h>
#endif
#include <linux/module.h>
Moral: don't try to mix MODVERSIONS and non-MODVERSIONS kernel code.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: can't compile 2.1.59
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:08:03 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Guilhem Tardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I am trying to compile the kernel 2.1.59... from a RH 6.0 (2.2.11)
> system. I have installed the older gcc successfully (and seperately
> from the more recent version), but I can't make the old binutils find
> the libraries.
Out of curiosity, why on earth do you want to do this? (Or be there a
serious typo up there somewhere?) 2.1.59 has no distinguishing marks
that I can remember other than Richard's MTRR support which I think
made it into that patch.
With older kernels you may wish to use gcc 2.7.2 instead of egcs or
post-egcs, but you shouldn't really have to touch the new binutils.
It's not like you're compiling it a.out or something.
> > I used the variable GCC_EXEC_PREFIX in the Makefile, or the option
> > "-B/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib" for gcc
What you want is "gcc -B/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i586-redhat-linux/2.7.2.3/"
(with your arch and version) and note the trailing slash.
If you really do need a different binutils, gcc can find "as" and "ld"
in /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/$ARCH/$VERSION/. For some architectures
(e.g. PowerPC) the kernel compile also requires things like objcopy;
just make it look in /usr/local/bin or whatever.
> I am no expert with this, I admit. Would you have any advice on how
> to make the assembler (as) and other binutils find the files and
> spare me the pain to install a full (old) RH just for a compilation?
Just switch to Debian. (: Then you can install the "gcc" and "egcc"
packages (gcc 2.7.2.3 and egcs 1.1.2 respectively) and watch them
coexist peacefully. In 2.2 ("potato", the version due out in November
if Debian breaks a record and ships on time) we now have "gcc" (2.95.2)
and "gcc272" (2.7.2.3).
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nicholas Dronen)
Subject: Re: Booting Linux on Sparc Classic using Null-Modem Connection for Console.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 06:16:46 GMT
Pete Zaitcev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Paul J Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >>>>>> "David" == David Wragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >--snip--
: > David> can telnet into it, but since a telnet login won't accept
: > David> root you are stuck.
: >--snip--
: >You can telnet in as a normal user and use "su -" to become root,
: >environment and all.
: Except there are no users after the installation, you must be
: root to create users!
: Actually, it seems that RH6.0 install image is broken, at least on
: sparc64. "boot net", "boot net console=ttya" yeld this:
: VFS: Mounted root (romfs filesystem).
: Warning: unable to open an initial console.
: After "boot net console=prom" the system starts, but it does not
: accept any input and you are stuck at the welcome screen of the
: installator.
: I remember that RH5.2 worked fine.
FYI: this is Debian Linux.
I don't know why it works now. I reinstalled and didn't
even include a 'console=' entry in /etc/silo.conf and
it boots fine. *shrug*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: getting 2.3.xx experimental kernel
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:27:02 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ntser1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I wonder if this is the right news group as I am having only 1 week
> experience on Linux.
> I would like to try a feature that can only runs on 2.3.x
> experiemental kernel, so,
> a) appreciate pointer on where to find documentation and instruction
> HOW-TO etc, for getting the new kernel (where is the offcial download
> site for experiemental kernel)
I hate to sound brusque, but if you only have a week of experience with
Linux and don't know how to download and compile a kernel yet, the
development series of kernels is probably not for you. They are called
that for a reason.
That said, download from ftp.XX.kernel.org:/pub/linux/kernel/ where XX
is your country code or something close by. The kernel images, like
all good software, come with a file in the source directory called
README. Instructions are in there. If you have trouble figuring out
the instructions, see above.
What new feature do you need anyway? If you're thinking of USB, good
luck trying to use it with its current state of development and your
current state of knowledge.... (Or maybe you just wanted to try out
the wait queue initialization macros or the wake-one accept?)
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: help.. This should work but why doesn't it??? (write fnc in driver)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:34:19 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> What does happen if you write to a read-only page in ring zero mode?
> Maybe I'll try it, on a scratch machine, just to see. (It can't be
> pretty, whatever it is.)
I am *not* going to try it, but my guess is the MMU will page fault and
the kernel will spit out an Oops.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
