Re: setting quotas _inside_ a jail for users _inside_ a jail
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Patrick Thomas wrote: I realize the difficulties in trying to use quotas on the _host_ system to limit the size of jails on the host system - userid mapping, etc. This is not what I am asking. I wonder, is it possible for the root user of a jail to set quotas _inside_ her jail for users _inside_ her jail ? Can anyone simply confirm or deny that this is possible ? Simply following normal protocol does not work, because if you place filesystem entries into /etc/fstab inside the jail, the jail will no longer start, as it does not have permission to mount or otherwise manipulate those filesystems. Other than the access control checks in the quota code being influenced by the jail, there really is no relationship between jails and quotas. Jails are solely a property of processes and other credential-bearing kernel objects. Persistent and transient quota information is stored relative to uids and gids, and quotas are enforced based on those elements of the process credential, and are not impacted by the jail field. This means that if a file system is shared by two jails, and a particular uid is in use in both jails, both sets of processes will be impacted by the same quota. Privileged users can perform quota management calls on any file system they can name via a visible file object. If quota management calls were permitted from jail, they could likewise be performed on any file system visible in the jail. If only appropriate file systems are visible from the jail, you could add PRISON_ROOT to the flags field of the relevant suser call. If you expose file systems to the jail that you don't want the root user in the jail to set quotas on, you may be out of luck. I take it from your description that you're interested in imposing quotas on the users in the jail, not quotas on the jail itself? Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
anyone seen this 5.0 panic on reboot?
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode fault virtual address = 0x8d fault code = supervisor read, page not present instruction pointer = 0x8:0xc02c7d24 stack pointer = 0x10:0xd26579ac frame pointer = 0x10:0xd26579dc code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b = DPL 0, pres 1, def32 1, gran 1 processor eflags= resume, IOPL = 0 current process = 354 (halt) kernel: type 12 trap, code=0 Stopped at 0xc02c7d24 is 0xc02c7d24 ithread_schedule+244: cmpl $0x27,0x8c(%esi) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Ðàáîòà â ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå !
Ïîïðîáóéòå íàéòè ðàáîòó â ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå! Åñëè ó Âàñ íåò ïîäòâåðæäåííîãî âûñøåãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ òåõíè÷åñêîãî, èëè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ. Åñëè Âû àáñîëþòíî äîâîëüíû Âàøèì ðàáîòîäàòåëåì è óñëîâèÿìè îïëàòû. Åñëè âàñ óñòðàèâàåò ýêîíîìè÷åñêàÿ è êðèìèíàëüíàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ â Âàøåì ãîðîäå/ñòðàíå. Òî ýòî îáðàùåíèå íå äëÿ Âàñ, è Âû ìîæåòå åãî ñïîêîéíî óäàëèòü.  ðåçóëüòàòå îòòîêà èíæåíåðñêèõ êàäðîâ íà çàïàä, â ×åõèè îáðàçîâàëñÿ ïîâûøåííûé ñïðîñ íà êâàëèöèðîâàííûõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ ñ âûñøèì îáðàçîâàíèåì. * Ó Âàñ âûñøåå îáðàçîâàíèå òåõíè÷åñêîãî, èëè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ? * Âû íå ìîæåòå íàéòè ðàáîòó? * Âàñ íå óñòðàèâàåò óñëîâèÿ îïëàòû, èëè ñðåäà îáèòàíèÿ? Ïîïðîáóéòå íàéòè ðàáîòó â ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå! Óñëîâèÿ îïëàòû: - íà÷àëüíàÿ çàðïëàòà - 12.000,- - 15.000,- êðîí (400,- - 500,- Åâðî) - ïðè óñïåøíîì âûïîëíåíèè ïðîèçâîäñòâåííûõ çàäà÷ è ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ êâàëèôèêàöèè çàðïëàòà - 40.000,- - 50.000,- êðîí (1.350,- - 1.600,- Åâðî). Äëÿ ñïðàâêè - ïðîæèòî÷íûé ìèíèìóì â ×åõèè ñîñòàâëÿåò 4.500,- Êðîí ÷åøñêèõ. Ïðè ýòîì íå çàáûâàéòå, ÷òî ñ âñòóïëåíèåì ×åõèè â Åâðîïåéñêèé Ñîþç, çàðïëàòà áóäåò ðàñòè, à êóðñ Åâðî ê Êðîíå ïîíèæàòüñÿ! ×åøñêèå çàâîäû è èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèå îðãàíèçàöèè æäóò Âàñ! Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé Èíôîðìàöèîííûé öåíòð (INFOCENTR) ïðåäëàãàåò Âàøåìó âíèìàíèþ ýêñêëþçèâíóþ ïðîãðàììó ïî àäàïòàöèè è ïîäáîðó ðàáî÷åãî ìåñòà â ×åøñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå. Ïðîäîëæèòåëüíîñòü ïðîãðàììû 4 - 5 ìåñÿöåâ (â ò.÷. 3-õ ìåñÿ÷íûå êóðñû ÿçûêà + 1 ìåñ. ñòàæèðâîêà)  ñòîèìîñòü ïðîãðàììû âõîäèò: 1/ Ïîäáîð ðàáî÷åãî ìåñòà. 2/ Êóðñû ÷åøñêîãî ÿçûêà. 3/ Ñòàæèðîâêà íà âûáðàííîì ïðåäïðèÿòèè. 4/ Îïëà÷åííîå ïðîæèâàíèå íà âñå âðåìÿ íàõîæäåíèÿ â ×åõèè. 5/ 3-õ ìåñÿ÷íîå ïðèãëàøåíèå â ×åõèþ. 6/ Áåñïëàòíîå ñîïðîâîæäåíèå êâàëèôèöèðîâàííûì ëè÷íûì êîíñóëüòàíòîì! Âû âñåãäà ñìîæåòå îáàðòèòüñÿ ê íàøèì ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿì â ×åõèè äëÿ ðàçúÿñíåíèÿ îñíîâíûõ þðèäè÷åñêèõ, õîçÿéñòâåííûõ è áûòîâûõ âîïðîñîâ. Ñòîèìîñòü ïðîãðàììû: - ñ ïðîæèâàíèåì (â ò.÷. çàâòðàê) - 2.300,- äîë. ÑØÀ - ñ ïðîæèâàíèåì (áåç çàâòðàêà) - 1.700,- äîë. ÑØÀ - áåç ïðîæèâàíèÿ - 1.150,- äîë. ÑØÀ Ïðèìå÷àíèÿ. 1/ Ïðèåì àíêåò è àíàëèç âîçìîæíûõ âàðèàíòîâ ïî òðóäîóñòðîéñòâó ïðîèçâîäèòñÿ ÁÅÑÏËÀÒÍÎ. 2/ Îáÿçàòåëüñòâ ïî îòâåòàì íà âñå ïðèñëàííûå àíêåòû, èëè íà èíûå îáðàùåíèÿ, ìû ÍÅ ÍÅÑÅÌ! 3/ Îòâåòû íà ïðèñëàííûå àíêåòû, ñ óêàçàíèåì êîíòàêòîâ íà íàøèõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé, áóäóò ïîñëàíû â ïîðÿäêå èõ îáðàáîòêè è òîëüêî íà êîíòàêòíûé å-ìåéë. 4/ Îïëàòà çà âñþ ïðîãðàììó ìîæåò áûòü ïðîâåäåíà íà îñíîâàíèè îôèöèàëüíîãî ñ÷åòà-ôàêòóðû çà êóðñû ÷åøñêîãî ÿçûêà â àêêðåäèòîâàííîì ÷åøñêîì ó÷åáíîì çàâåäåíèè, èëè ÷åðåç ñèñòåìó Àíåëèê. Îïëàòà óñëóã çà ïåðåâîä ïðîèçâîäèòñÿ îòïðàâèòåëåì. 5/ Ïîñëå ïîëó÷åíèÿ îïëàòû ñ Âàìè áóäåò ñîãëàñîâàíà ïðîãðàììà ñòàæèðîâêè, îñíîâîé êîòîðîé áóäåò ó÷åáíûé ïëàí êóðñîâ ÷åøñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ïîñëå óòâåðæäåíèÿ ñðîêîâ Âàøåãî ïðèåçäà, Âàì áóäåò ïðèñëàíî îôèöèàëüíîå ïðèãëàøåíèå íà ó÷åáó äëÿ ïîëó÷åíèÿ ìíîãîðàçîâîé 3-õ ìåñÿ÷íîé âèçû â ÷åøñêîì Êîíñóëüñòâå. ÎÏËÀÒÀ ÂÈÇÎÂÎÃÎ ÑÁÎÐÀ  ÑÒÎÈÌÎÑÒÜ ÎÁÓ×ÅÍÈß ÍÅ ÂÕÎÄÈÒ! 6/  ñëó÷àå Âàøåé íåâîçìîæíîñòè ïðèåõàòü â ×åõèþ ïî íåçàâèñÿùèì îò íàñ ïðè÷èíàì, ïîñëå ñîãëàñîâàíèÿ äàòû íà÷àëà îáó÷åíèÿ, Èíôîöåíòð íå íåò îáÿçàòåëüñòâ ïî ïîëíîìó âîçâðàòó ïîëó÷åííûõ äåíåã! Åñëè Âàñ çàèíòåðåñîâàëî íàøå ïðåäëîæåíèå, ïîæàëóéñòà, îòâåòüòå íà àíêåòó è îòïðàâüòå íà ìåéë: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (òîëüêî äëÿ àíêåò!): 1/ Ô.È.Î. 2/ Äàòà ðîæäåíèÿ 3/ Ñïåöèàëüíîñòü ïî äèïëîìó 4/ Íàçâàíèå, àäðåñ ÂÓÇà/îâ 5/ Äàòà îêîí÷àíèÿ ÂÓÇà/îâ 6/ Ñòàæ ðàáîòû ïî ñïåöèàëüíîñòè, ïîäòâåðæäåííûé â òðóäîâîé êíèæêå. 7/ Íàñòîÿùåå ìåñòî ðàáîòû, äîëæíîñòü 8/ Çíàíèå èíîñòðàííûõ ÿçûêîâ 9/ Ñåìåéíîå ïîëîæåíèå 10/ Íàëè÷èå äåòåé, èõ êîëè÷åñòâî 11/ Ïðî÷åå (ïî Âàøåìó óñìîòðåíèþ) 12/ Êîíòàêòíûé å-ìåéë. Ñ óâàæåíèåì, Ìåæäóíàðîäíûé Èíôîðìàöèîííî öåíòð â ×åõèè (INFOCENTR) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (òîëüêî äëÿ àíêåò!) Tel/fax: +420 38 610 6147 Ñåðãåé Âèêòîðîâè÷ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ïðèìå÷àíèå. ÌÀÑÑÎÂÛÅ ÐÀÑÑÛËÊÈ ÍÅ ÏÐÎÒÈÂÎÐÅ×ÀÒ ÇÀÊÎÍÎÄÀÒÅËÜÑÒÂÓ ÐÔ è Óêðàèíû. Äîïîëíèòåëüíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ î ïðàâîâûõ àñïåêòàõ e-mail ðàññûëîê Âû ìîæåòå ïîëó÷èòü íà ñàéòå Îáùåñòâåííîãî Ñîâåòà ïî Èíôîðìàöèîííîìó Îáìåíó â Ñåòè http://www.osios.org/ Èíôîðìàöèÿ ïî âîïðîñó ðàññûëêè îáðàùàòñÿ ïî àäðåñó mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: setting quotas _inside_ a jail for users _inside_ a jail
No, sorry I think that I was misunderstood - here is my situation: - I have a host machine with no users - just root. - on that host machine I have a vn-backed FS 500 megs in size - on that vn-backed FS, I run a jail - and no other jails share that vn-backed FS (although other jails may share the underlying actual disk FS that the vn is on...) Now, I die in a car accident and nobody ever logs into the host system again or touches anything on the _host system_. Can the root user of the _jail running on the host system_ set up quotas for her users ? Let's assume the root user and all her other users don't even know it is a jail - as far as they are concerned, it's just their freebsd machine. So the question is, can this root user set up quotas ? And if so, some hints on exactly what needs to go into /etc/fstab _inside their jail_, since specifying anything in there seems to have the side effects of: a) not working as expected b) causing the jail not to be startable. thanks, PT On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Robert Watson wrote: On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Patrick Thomas wrote: I realize the difficulties in trying to use quotas on the _host_ system to limit the size of jails on the host system - userid mapping, etc. This is not what I am asking. I wonder, is it possible for the root user of a jail to set quotas _inside_ her jail for users _inside_ her jail ? Can anyone simply confirm or deny that this is possible ? Simply following normal protocol does not work, because if you place filesystem entries into /etc/fstab inside the jail, the jail will no longer start, as it does not have permission to mount or otherwise manipulate those filesystems. Other than the access control checks in the quota code being influenced by the jail, there really is no relationship between jails and quotas. Jails are solely a property of processes and other credential-bearing kernel objects. Persistent and transient quota information is stored relative to uids and gids, and quotas are enforced based on those elements of the process credential, and are not impacted by the jail field. This means that if a file system is shared by two jails, and a particular uid is in use in both jails, both sets of processes will be impacted by the same quota. Privileged users can perform quota management calls on any file system they can name via a visible file object. If quota management calls were permitted from jail, they could likewise be performed on any file system visible in the jail. If only appropriate file systems are visible from the jail, you could add PRISON_ROOT to the flags field of the relevant suser call. If you expose file systems to the jail that you don't want the root user in the jail to set quotas on, you may be out of luck. I take it from your description that you're interested in imposing quotas on the users in the jail, not quotas on the jail itself? Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: More dynamic KVA_SPACE
Brandon D. Valentine wrote: [ ... AMD ... ] In all seriousness I'm not sure where he got the idea that these things were supposed to be out a while ago but I don't recall any claims from AMD to confirm that. If anything AMD's development cycle for these things makes Intel's development cycle for IA64 downright embarassing. The x86-64 silicon will be on the market on schedule and according to the benchmarks I've seen will be doubling the IPC of AMD's already impressive x86-32 hardware. Plus, I hear they run cool, which would be a pleasant change from the current Athlons and might actually make AMD processors a viable option in dense environments. At one point in time, I was working on a product that really, really cared about more than 4G of linearlly addressable memory (i.e. PAE need not apply, since only a moron would implement the particular product that way, given the overall requirements). The original claims for the tape-out on the x86-64 from AMD so that this could happen were September 2001, with sample units 1Q2002. The AMD schedule slipped. I realize that schedule slippage is practically the norm, these days, so nobody questions it any more, but that doesn't make it any less annoying for people who try to do what they say when they say. You'll notice that I *clearly* identified the posting as a rant. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: setting quotas _inside_ a jail for users _inside_ a jail
Patrick Thomas wrote: No, sorry I think that I was misunderstood - here is my situation: - I have a host machine with no users - just root. - on that host machine I have a vn-backed FS 500 megs in size - on that vn-backed FS, I run a jail - and no other jails share that vn-backed FS (although other jails may share the underlying actual disk FS that the vn is on...) This is the magic part: quotas are per-UID, per-FS, but Robert is correct about their relationship to jails. What you failed to communicate to Robert is that you have also arbitrarily defined FS's to be per-jail, which, in the limit, will (effectively) make quota per-UID, per-jail. Most people don't use vn-backed FSs for jails. Now, I die in a car accident and nobody ever logs into the host system again or touches anything on the _host system_. Can the root user of the _jail running on the host system_ set up quotas for her users ? Let's assume the root user and all her other users don't even know it is a jail - as far as they are concerned, it's just their freebsd machine. The answer is yes. The method of doing this was already posted in this thread. You have to do evil things to the fstab within the jail itself, and outside the jail, but if you wave the correct dead chicken, it works. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: why does this sendmail connection take so long?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:27:07AM -0700, Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: That explains it. You have a record pointing localhost.example.org at ::1 Unfortunately this is our default configuration: # $FreeBSD: src/etc/hosts,v 1.15 2001/12/11 22:36:10 rwatson Exp $ ..snip.. ::1 localhost localhost.my.domain 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain This has caused me trouble before and I've been close to reversing the IPv6 and IPv4 lines... I swapped them since I have log_in_vain turned on, and I didn't like the extra alerts I was getting. Works great for me... Now just if I could get Sendmail to not do those dang identd checks all the time... The less false alarms that log_in_vain reports, the more safe and cozy I feel :) Eric To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
