Re: multipathd?
[Resending because I screwed up sending to the list. Sorry Michael for the duplicate.] On 2017-07-14 at 14:46, Michael Di Domenico wrote: > does anyone know if it's possible to run multipathd under busybox? i > suspect this is a fools errand given that multipath is a redhat > project, which then ties it with udev which then ties it with systemd. eudev [1], forked from systemd's udev, works nicely to manage device files without systemd. But ... > i tried just grabbing the multipath binaries from rhel7 and plugging > them into my initrd image, but that doesn't seem to work quite right. > i suspect my issue is that multipath wants a bunch of info from udev > which i don't have since it's busybox. ... I think what you need instead is dmsetup, maintained within LVM2, to create the /dev/mapper nodes for multipathd. [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Eudev -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott: http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS: http://www.proteanos.com/ Founder and CEO, Libiquity: http://www.libiquity.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: LZO security bug might affect Busybox
On 2014-06-28 09:33, Isaac Dunham wrote: > There's an integer overflow in LZO (LMS-2014-06-16-1): > http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2014/06/26/20 > > I suspect that this affects Busybox; the code would be in > archival/libarchive/lzo1x_d.c > But I wouldn't be able to verify that or to fix it. Yes, I believe the copy of libarchive in BusyBox is affected. The file that defines the vulnerable function is only built if CONFIG_LZOP is enabled, so disabling that (if enabled) is a temporary way to avoid the overflow issue. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: [PATCH] Fix 'make distclean' to clean generated docs
On 2014-03-19 01:28, j...@jodybruchon.com wrote: > Running 'make distclean' does not remove various generated files in the "docs" > directory. This has frustrated me when trying to make patches against BusyBox, > as I cannot clean the folders properly without manually deleting files. The > attached patch adds these generated docs to the "make distclean" list to be > removed, thus truly cleaning to a pristine distribution state. > > Signed-off-by: Jody Bruchon Git can help you ignore such files (thanks to docs/.gitignore) and make patches (either with just `git diff` or by committing changes in a branch and generating mail messages with `git format-patch`). > diff -Naurw a/Makefile b/Makefile > --- a/Makefile2014-01-19 21:39:28.0 -0500 > +++ b/Makefile2014-03-19 01:02:02.529223008 -0400 > @@ -973,6 +973,11 @@ > include/applets.h \ > include/usage.h \ > applets/usage \ > + docs/BusyBox.html > + docs/BusyBox.txt > + docs/busybox.1 > + docs/busybox.net/BusyBox.html > + docs/busybox.pod > .kernelrelease Module.symvers tags TAGS cscope* \ > busybox_old You need to escape the newline characters in the added lines with "\". With that fix, the patch looks fine to me for what that's worth. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o
On 2013-09-18 12:38, Laurent Bercot wrote: >>> How do you know for sure ? >> As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. > > That would only prove that the "uname" implementation is Busybox's. That > wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system. Anyone running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system can easily patch coreutils/uname.c to change the output of `uname -o`. I suggest that "BusyBox/Linux" be the "default" otherwise. Perhaps this could be added as an option to Kconfig to obviate a patch. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o
On 2013-09-18 04:18, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >> But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the >> userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. > > How do you know for sure ? As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. If the uname is provided by BusyBox, the userspace is probably BusyBox (just like GNU uname assumes the userspace is GNU). > Busybox isn't the only alternative userspace. There are other several, > if lesser-known, projects that provide low-level userspace tools. > toybox is one. s6-portable-utils + s6-linux-utils is another. And they > are certainly not the only ones. Right. But Toybox has its own uname [1][2], so BusyBox uname won't be installed on a Toybox-based system (which of course is not a "BusyBox/Linux" or "GNU/Linux" system). Running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system (that is, configuring BusyBox to build only the uname applet and little or nothing else) makes no sense. [1]: http://www.landley.net/toybox/status.html#done [2]: http://www.landley.net/hg/toybox/file/tip/toys/posix/uname.c > In 2000, I have built a server without GNU software just to contradict RMS, > who was insisting that I should call my system GNU/Linux instead of Linux. > Don't make me build a server without GNU *and* without Busybox just to > contradict you. ;) If you do, then GNU uname won't be able to call the system "GNU/Linux" and BusyBox uname won't be able to call it "BusyBox/Linux", because it actually won't be either. That doesn't contradict me at all. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote: > - strcpy(uname_info.os, "GNU/Linux"); > + strcpy(uname_info.os, > +#ifdef __GLIBC__ > + "GNU/" > +#endif > + "Linux"); I'd agree that most BusyBox-based systems can hardly be called "GNU/Linux", even with glibc. It seems inappropriate to call a system "GNU" if it has little or no GNU software. But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. - strcpy(uname_info.os, "GNU/Linux"); + strcpy(uname_info.os, "BusyBox/Linux"); -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
