I am forwarding this to -current as I think it needs more neurons on it..
I am presently unable to spend any due to work commitments, and due to a sort-of
personal confusion about tis stuff anyhow..
David Xu wrote:
>
> does anyone believe that su behaviours correctly?
> we are talking that ke
> David Xu wrote:
> > want, and all job control gets weird. I suguest this job control
> > assumption should be removed, strange thing is why su calls fork()?
> > why doesn't call directly execvl()? I don't see su calls fork() in
> > OpenBSD.
This has to do with PAM, AFAIK. Someone has to call P
--- "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 17:41:20 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 06:28:54 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> > > does anyone believe that su behaviours correctly?
> >
> > I not believe in that first, so why I remove tcsetpgrg
--- David Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 17:41:20 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 06:28:54 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> > > > does anyone believe that su behaviours correctly?
> > >
> > >
David Xu wrote:
> following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> problem you described, I have tested it under tcsh and bash, all works
> for me.
[ ... ]
Looks like a patch to a user space program to deal with POSIX
non-compliance of the host OS.
-- Terry
To Unsubscr
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 06:54:42PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I am forwarding this to -current as I think it needs more neurons on it..
> I am presently unable to spend any due to work commitments, and due to a sort-of
> personal confusion about tis stuff anyhow..
>
>
> David Xu wrote:
>
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 22:53:15 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> problem you described, I have tested it under tcsh and bash, all works
> for me.
>
Thanx, committed.
--
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/
To Unsubscribe: se
Tim Robbins wrote:
> I compiled GNU sh-utils 1.16 with Redhat's PAM patch on -current. It works
> well and does not seem to have the bugs w/ csh's suspend or kill -STOP $$
> that I complained about earlier.
>
> This means that either our su is broken, or the different way Redhat
> has implemented
"Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 22:53:15 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> > following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> > problem you described, I have tested it under tcsh and bash, all works
> > for me.
>
> Thanx, committed.
UGH!
#1 License on p
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 04:03:31 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 22:53:15 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> > > following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> > > problem you described, I have tested it under tcsh and bash, all
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 04:03:31 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 22:53:15 -0700, David Xu wrote:
> > > > following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> > > > problem
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:15:02 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> Anyway, it has one blatant style bug (not 1TBS) and no explanation of
> the bug, so it should not have been committed verbatim. See another
> reply for an analysis of the patch.
According to commit guide, explanations are not commit
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, David Xu wrote:
> following is patch for su, I can type "suspend" and stop $$ without the
> problem you described, I have tested it under tcsh and bash, all works
> for me.
>
> --- su.c Mon Aug 12 13:08:01 2002
> +++ su.c.new Mon Aug 12 13:16:14 2002
> @@ -329,10 +329,1
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:15:02 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, it has one blatant style bug (not 1TBS) and no explanation of
> > the bug, so it should not have been committed verbatim. See another
> > reply for an analysis of the patch.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 09:21:31PM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:15:02 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, it has one blatant style bug (not 1TBS) and no explanation of
> > the bug, so it should not have been committed verbatim. See another
> > reply for an a
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 04:58:17 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> Explanation of this patch:
Thanx. Could you please commit this explanation, or some re-phrasing of it
into su.c?
--
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-cur
"Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > UGH!
> >
> > #1License on patch is GPL
>
> Why not Microsoft?
I don't unserstand the question. Why not the same license that's
areleady on the source code for "su"?
> > #2I guess now that this irritant is gone, the signals code
> > will remain scre
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 17:10:47 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> I don't unserstand the question. Why not the same license that's
> areleady on the source code for "su"?
See usr.bin/su.c header for license.
> I still think other code is going to have the problem, too, so
> changing su alone do
--- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did. It's still an order of operation problem in the kernel
> during fork(), as Bruce pointed out in a later posting (so me
> pointing it out here is probably redundant... 8-)).
>
> I still think other code is going to have the problem, too, so
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:14:38AM -0700, David Xu wrote:
> --- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did. It's still an order of operation problem in the kernel
> > during fork(), as Bruce pointed out in a later posting (so me
> > pointing it out here is probably redundant... 8-)).
> >
On 13-Aug-2002 (13:59:39/GMT) Tim Robbins wrote:
> What about chpass, vipw, and the other pw_edit() consumers? vipw
> works correctly wrt suspending with ^Z on 4.6-RELEASE, but does
> not on -CURRENT.
vipw works _perfectly_ here, on a not-too-current -CURRENT, from tcsh
I can suspend (^Z), list
On 13-Aug-2002 (15:06:48/GMT) Riccardo Torrini wrote:
> ...important data are on NFS -CURRENT server...
No, I means -STABLE server (obvious :)
Riccardo.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:14:38AM -0700, David Xu wrote:
>
> > --- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I did. It's still an order of operation problem in the kernel
> > > during fork(), as Bruce pointed out in a later posting (so me
> > > poi
Bruce Evans wrote:
> Er, I didn't point out anything like this, and thought that it wasn't
> a kernel problem. It's certainly not a problem at fork() time.
[ ... ]
> I think unwanted SIGTTOU's are just a sympto.
Here's the source of my confusion; I thought that you meant they were
the proximal
--- Tim Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:14:38AM -0700, David Xu wrote:
>
> > --- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I did. It's still an order of operation problem in the kernel
> > > during fork(), as Bruce pointed out in a later posting (so me
> > >
David Xu wrote:
> > What about chpass, vipw, and the other pw_edit() consumers? vipw
> > works correctly wrt suspending with ^Z on 4.6-RELEASE, but does not
> > on -CURRENT. As far as I can see, pw_edit()'s logic has not been changed.
> >
> > This is a slightly different case to that of the shell
--- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Xu wrote:
> > > What about chpass, vipw, and the other pw_edit() consumers? vipw
> > > works correctly wrt suspending with ^Z on 4.6-RELEASE, but does not
> > > on -CURRENT. As far as I can see, pw_edit()'s logic has not been changed.
> > >
> >
David Xu wrote:
> > Both different reports have been from Tim Robbins. It may
> > be that he has a local problem, and that his local problem
> > is greatly confusing this discussion.
> >
> > If you can not repeat his second problem on -current locally,
> > I would be tempted to dismiss it as bein
--- Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My machine may be different with Tim's, it is a P4 1.5G CPU,
> > its speed maybe fast enough to skip the problem. BTW, bde has
> > also reported the problem, so this is serious, wouldn't kernel
> > send out SIGTTOU when null change a foreground gro
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:25:37PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> The patch that Tim posted, which is GPL'ed because of its origin,
> and therefore unusable exacept as a model, "fixes" the problem
> by blocking the signal delivery before the fork.
>
Can you provide a non-GPL patch to assuage y
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:04:20PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Both different reports have been from Tim Robbins. It may
> be that he has a local problem, and that his local problem
> is greatly confusing this discussion.
Unfortunately, this is not a local problem -- I can reproduce it locall
Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:25:37PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The patch that Tim posted, which is GPL'ed because of its origin,
> > and therefore unusable exacept as a model, "fixes" the problem
> > by blocking the signal delivery before the fork.
>
> Can you provide a n
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:25:37PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > The patch that Tim posted, which is GPL'ed because of its origin,
> > > and therefore unusable exacept as a model, "fixes" the problem
> > > by blocking the signal delivery before the
Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:04:20PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Both different reports have been from Tim Robbins. It may
> > be that he has a local problem, and that his local problem
> > is greatly confusing this discussion.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not a local proble
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:54:06PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Tim Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:04:20PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Both different reports have been from Tim Robbins. It may
> > > be that he has a local problem, and that his local problem
> > > is greatly
There is a kernel change brewing
that may change this
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> This has nothing to do with PAM. Here is a simple program which behaves
> differently between 4.6-RELEASE and 5.0-CURRENT. I don't know which
> of the two behaviours is correct.
>
>
[...]
Tim Robbins wrote:
> This has nothing to do with PAM. Here is a simple program which behaves
> differently between 4.6-RELEASE and 5.0-CURRENT. I don't know which
> of the two behaviours is correct.
[ ... ]
If 4.6 disagrees with 5.0, then 5.0 is wrong (IMO), because a
change was necessary for th
37 matches
Mail list logo
