Re: getty hidden process

[Mike Frysinger]

On 17 Mar 2017 10:24, Lars Alex Pedersen wrote:
> I'm trying to enable and disable getty using inittab as we has a usecase to
> lock down the serial port depending on a configuration value. By commenting
> the getty line out in inittab and sending a "kill -HUP -1" it will reload
> the inittab config and kill processes that has been removed. Adding getty to
> inittab and reloading init works fine but stopping it doesn't. Afterwards I
> discovered that getty must be running hidden since I couldn't find it in
> top/ps or /proc.  
> 
> Tested using busybox 1.24.2 and 1.21.x and know that we have seen getty
> before as a process in an older version of busybox. 

userspace cannot hide processes from the kernel.  if it's not in /proc,
then it's because it doesn't exist.  please double check things.
-mike
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: A good scripting language for busybox?

[Daniel Thompson]

On 17/03/17 15:20, Pavel Aronsky wrote:

Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question.
After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell
used as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox
experts: what are alternatives?

This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html  - mentions Lua and
Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not
find one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure
such things exists).


If you like python then I'd suggest the unix port of micropython. Both 
micropython and micropython-lib are already integrated into buildroot so 
kicking the tyres alongside busybox in a real system should be *very* easy.



Daniel.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: A good scripting language for busybox?

[Kang-Che Sung]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Pavel Aronsky  wrote:
> Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question.
> After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell used
> as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox experts:
> what are alternatives?
>
> This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html  - mentions Lua and
> Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not find
> one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure such things
> exists).
>
> However my search hit one interesting Javascript engine named Duktape
> (duktape.org).
>
> Javascript looks almost as good as Python for me, it is popular and should
> be familiar to new developers. Lua is less familiar, but much better for
> writing moderately simple app logic than the *dreadful* shell language.
>
> So the question: how feasible would be inclusion of Lua or Javascript into
> BB, as option for systems where one of these languages will be heavy used?
>
> As "plan B": has anyone seen (or thought of) a FFI interface for BB that
> would allow to call shared libraries written in C, from ash?
>

BusyBox isn't a project that would make a "scripting language" or a
"programming environment" for you. BusyBox is a set of common Unix utilities
fused in one binary that can be used on small or embedded OS distributions.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: A good scripting language for busybox?

[Pavel A]

Thanks for the suggestion. I am not familiar with yocto. 
If they can cross compile Python (that is very hard, as google results show), 
it would be great. I'll look at it. 

Regards, 
Pavel A 

> On 17 Mar 2017, at 17:23, Laszlo Papp  wrote:
> 
> Why do you need a scripting language in the busybox project?
> 
> Cannot you just generate the platform with things like a small subset of 
> python using Yocto or something similar?
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Pavel Aronsky  
>> wrote:
>> Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question.
>> After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell used 
>> as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox experts: 
>> what are alternatives?
>> 
>> This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html  - mentions Lua and 
>> Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not find 
>> one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure such things 
>> exists).
>> 
>> However my search hit one interesting Javascript engine named Duktape 
>> (duktape.org).
>> 
>> Javascript looks almost as good as Python for me, it is popular and should 
>> be familiar to new developers. Lua is less familiar, but much better for 
>> writing moderately simple app logic than the *dreadful* shell language.
>> 
>> So the question: how feasible would be inclusion of Lua or Javascript into 
>> BB, as option for systems where one of these languages will be heavy used?
>> 
>> As "plan B": has anyone seen (or thought of) a FFI interface for BB that 
>> would allow to call shared libraries written in C, from ash?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> Pavel A.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> busybox mailing list
>> busybox@busybox.net
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: A good scripting language for busybox?

[Laszlo Papp]

Why do you need a scripting language in the busybox project?

Cannot you just generate the platform with things like a small subset of
python using Yocto or something similar?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Pavel Aronsky 
wrote:

> Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question.
> After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell
> used as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox
> experts: what are alternatives?
>
> This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html  - mentions Lua and
> Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not find
> one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure such things
> exists).
>
> However my search hit one interesting Javascript engine named Duktape (
> duktape.org).
>
> Javascript looks almost as good as Python for me, it is popular and should
> be familiar to new developers. Lua is less familiar, but much better for
> writing moderately simple app logic than the *dreadful* shell language.
>
> So the question: how feasible would be inclusion of Lua or Javascript into
> BB, as option for systems where one of these languages will be heavy used?
>
> As "plan B": has anyone seen (or thought of) a FFI interface for BB that
> would allow to call shared libraries written in C, from ash?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Pavel A.
>
>
>
> ___
> busybox mailing list
> busybox@busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

A good scripting language for busybox?

[Pavel Aronsky]

Apologies for maybe a wild or off-topic question.
After dealing with quite a few products with busybox and its ash shell used
as the primary scripting language, I'd like to ask you, busybox experts:
what are alternatives?

This page: https://busybox.net/tinyutils.html  - mentions Lua and
Micro-perl. I'd rather perfer a small subset of Python, but cold not find
one after a day of googling (this is surprising. I've been sure such things
exists).

However my search hit one interesting Javascript engine named Duktape (
duktape.org).

Javascript looks almost as good as Python for me, it is popular and should
be familiar to new developers. Lua is less familiar, but much better for
writing moderately simple app logic than the *dreadful* shell language.

So the question: how feasible would be inclusion of Lua or Javascript into
BB, as option for systems where one of these languages will be heavy used?

As "plan B": has anyone seen (or thought of) a FFI interface for BB that
would allow to call shared libraries written in C, from ash?

Thanks in advance,

Pavel A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

getty hidden process

[Lars Alex Pedersen]

I'm trying to enable and disable getty using inittab as we has a usecase to
lock down the serial port depending on a configuration value. By commenting
the getty line out in inittab and sending a "kill -HUP -1" it will reload
the inittab config and kill processes that has been removed. Adding getty to
inittab and reloading init works fine but stopping it doesn't. Afterwards I
discovered that getty must be running hidden since I couldn't find it in
top/ps or /proc.  

Tested using busybox 1.24.2 and 1.21.x and know that we have seen getty
before as a process in an older version of busybox. 

Lars Alex Pedersen




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox