On 2023-09-17 20:28:49, Alexe Stefan wrote:
>
> There are 2 open pr's on the opentmpfiles github. One removes the
> security vulnerability, but is non-compliant with the spec, the other
> is (at least is a start of) a rewrite in c.
The PR is still vulnerable. These checks,
_chown() {
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 13:25:20 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2023-09-17 15:32:46, Marc Joliet wrote:
> > I just want to say how amazed I am that you (and Arsen, too) still
> > have the patience to try and explain the realities of the situation
> > like this, especially after the eudev thread.
On 9/17/23, orbea wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:58:00 +0200
> Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>
>> Alexe Stefan writes:
>>
>> > One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems
>> > here)
>>
>> Not that implementation language matters.
>>
>> > One is not part of systemd, the other is.
On 2023-09-17 15:32:46, Marc Joliet wrote:
> I just want to say how amazed I am that you (and Arsen, too) still have the
> patience to try and explain the realities of the situation like this,
> especially after the eudev thread.
I'm a founding member of the systemd haters club so I'm
Am Sonntag, 17. September 2023, 15:32:46 CEST schrieb Marc Joliet:
> Am Sonntag, 17. September 2023, 13:53:45 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> > On 2023-09-17 08:26:50, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> [...]
>
> I just want to say how amazed I am that you (and Arsen, too) still have the
> patience to try and
Am Sonntag, 17. September 2023, 13:53:45 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> On 2023-09-17 08:26:50, Alexe Stefan wrote:
[...]
I just want to say how amazed I am that you (and Arsen, too) still have the
patience to try and explain the realities of the situation like this,
especially after the eudev
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:58:00 +0200
Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Alexe Stefan writes:
>
> > One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems
> > here)
>
> Not that implementation language matters.
>
> > One is not part of systemd, the other is.
>
> Both work fine without
On 2023-09-17 08:26:50, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
> One is not part of systemd, the other is.
> How are they identical.
The big picture is that the tmpfiles.d specification is impossible to
implement securely on a POSIX system. The
Arsen Arsenović writes:
[snip]
>> How are they identical.
>
> The last rites message does not say that opentmpfiles and
> systemd-tmpfiles are identical. That'd do a disservice to the actually
> complete, unmaintained, and (currently) non-CVE-affected implementation
^^ C-h C-h...
Alexe Stefan writes:
> One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
Not that implementation language matters.
> One is not part of systemd, the other is.
Both work fine without systemd, but the systemd implementation also
happens not to be unmaintained and happens to
On 9/17/23, David Seifert wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 08:26 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
>> One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
>> One is not part of systemd, the other is.
>> How are they identical.
>>
>> I use this on my raspi server, works fine.
>>
>> Gentoo
On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 08:26 +0300, Alexe Stefan wrote:
> One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
> One is not part of systemd, the other is.
> How are they identical.
>
> I use this on my raspi server, works fine.
>
> Gentoo really became a systemd distro, further
One is written in shell, the other is written in c.(no problems here)
One is not part of systemd, the other is.
How are they identical.
I use this on my raspi server, works fine.
Gentoo really became a systemd distro, further restricting choice by the day.
13 matches
Mail list logo
