The BTTV driver 0.7.48 doesn't detect my old Hauppauge card anymore.
The problem seems to be that my card sets PCI_SUBSYSTEM_ID and
PCI_SUBSYSTEM_VENDOR_ID to zero (lspci output below).
In 2.4.0-test10-pre5, the card was correctly detected as a
"Hauppauge old". If I set btv->type to 2 in 2.4.0-te
Werner Almesberger wrote:
> The BTTV driver 0.7.48 doesn't detect my old Hauppauge card anymore.
Yes. I've taken out the detection heuristics for bt848 cards. The code
is very old, from the days where only 2-3 different bt848 cards where
available. It simply did'nt work correctly and often use
Gerd Knorr wrote:
> It simply did'nt work correctly and often used to misdetect
> random bt848 cards as either MIRO or Hauppauge (which where the first
> available cards).
Well, this means there's yet another mandatory __setup parameter :-(
Should it be called bttv_card or bt484_card (i.e. are t
Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Gerd Knorr wrote:
> > It simply did'nt work correctly and often used to misdetect
> > random bt848 cards as either MIRO or Hauppauge (which where the first
> > available cards).
>
> Well, this means there's yet another mandatory __setup parameter :-(
Why? What is the
Gerd Knorr wrote:
> Why? What is the point in compiling bttv statically into the kernel?
> Unlike filesystems/ide/scsi/... you don't need it to get the box up.
> No problem to compile the driver as module and configure it with
> /etc/modules.conf ...
Huh?
Some systems are built without module
> > Why? What is the point in compiling bttv statically into the kernel?
> > Unlike filesystems/ide/scsi/... you don't need it to get the box up.
> > No problem to compile the driver as module and configure it with
> > /etc/modules.conf ...
>
> Huh?
>
> Some systems are built without module sup
On 19 Nov 2000 12:56:17 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerd Knorr) wrote:
>Some generic way to make module args available as kernel args too
>would be nice. Or at least some simple one-liner I could put next to
>the MODULE_PARM() macro...
On my list for 2.5. If foo is declared as MODULE_PARM in objec
0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: 19 Nov 2000 12:56:17 GMT
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Newsgroups: lists.linux.kernel
> Subject: Re: BTTV detection broken in 2.4.0-test11-pre5
>
> > > Why? What is the point in compiling bttv statically into t
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> system, can make it almost impossible to detect that your system has been
> compramised. with module support disabled this isn't possible.
Yes, it is. Easily. If you've got root you
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 07:16:52 -0800 (PST),
David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
>system, can make it almost impossible to detect that your system has been
>compramised. with module support disabled this isn't possible.
Wrong.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> > system, can make it almost impossible to detect that your system has been
> > compramised. with module support disabled this isn't possib
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
>> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
>> > system, can make it almost impossible to detect that your system has been
>> > compramised.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> >> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> >> > system, can make it almost impos
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> >> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> >> > system, can make it almost impossib
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >Kernel on writeprotected floppy disk...
> Cute. And when (not if) we get hit by new bug in the net/*/* you will drive
> to the location of said router to upgrade the thing.
No, post/email a floppy to tech who swaps the floppy and reboots router.
-D
> Why not? /me has nearly everything compiled as modules.
Some people have extensive sh, awk and sed scripts to manage their systems, some
have compiled programs.
> > There is an introduced security weakness by using kernels.
>
> ??? Guess you mean "by using modules"? Which weakness? Other
Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >Kernel on writeprotected floppy disk...
>
> So change the CMOS-settings so that the BIOS changes the boot order
> from A, C, CD-ROM to C first instead. *grin* How long do you want
> to keep playing Tic-Tac-Toe?
>
> Of course, using capabilities and totally disabling
> > So change the CMOS-settings so that the BIOS changes the boot order
> > from A, C, CD-ROM to C first instead. *grin* How long do you want
> > to keep playing Tic-Tac-Toe?
>
> Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboard jumper, and remove the
> cmos battery.
>
> Checkmate. :-)
You can
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> system, can make it almost impossible to detect that your system has been
> compramised. with module support disabled this isn't possible.
Wrong. I've seen messages on bugtraq saying
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2000 12:56:17 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerd Knorr) wrote:
> >Some generic way to make module args available as kernel args too
> >would be nice. Or at least some simple one-liner I could put next to
> >the MODULE_PARM() macro...
>
> On my li
Someone wrote:
> > > So change the CMOS-settings so that the BIOS changes the boot order
> > > from A, C, CD-ROM to C first instead. *grin* How long do you want
> > > to keep playing Tic-Tac-Toe?
> >
> > Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboard jumper, and remove the
> > cmos battery.
T
Christer Weinigel wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> >> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> >> > system, can make it almost impossible to detect that yo
Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> > >> > there is a rootkit kernel module out there that, if loaded onto your
> > >>
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:03:52 +0100 (CET),
Gerd Knorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
>> On my list for 2.5. If foo is declared as MODULE_PARM in object bar
>> then you will be able to boot with bar.foo=27 or even foo=27 as long as
>> variable foo is unique amo
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Dan Hollis wrote:
> Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboard jumper, and remove the
> cmos battery.
>
> Checkmate. :-)
Only if you run your kernel XIP from the flash. If you load it into RAM,
it's still possible for an attacker to modify it. You can load new code
into
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboard jumper, and remove the
> > cmos battery.
> > Checkmate. :-)
> Only if you run your kernel XIP from the flash. If you load it into RAM,
> it's still possible for
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Someone wrote:
> > > > So change the CMOS-settings so that the BIOS changes the boot order
> > > > from A, C, CD-ROM to C first instead. *grin* How long do you want
> > > > to keep playing Tic-Tac-Toe?
> > > Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboa
David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please turn this off.
>>
>My vcard size is the same or smaller than the average signature. Using mime,
you
>have the option of easily filtering vcards. Signatures aren't as easily
>identified for filtering.
I think the complaint was due not to the siz
On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 07:00:41PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > Writeprotect the flashbios with the motherboard jumper, and remove the
> > > cmos battery.
> > > Checkmate. :-)
> > Only if you run your kernel
On 19 Nov 2000, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> Some generic way to make module args available as kernel args too
> would be nice. Or at least some simple one-liner I could put next to
> the MODULE_PARM() macro...
Well, I did a patch that does automagically convert MODULE_PARAM
stuff to __setup() functions
Gerd Knorr wrote:
> Why? What is the point in compiling bttv statically into the kernel?
Well, I see the modules vs. static flame war is already in progress ;-)
My reason for wanting static kernels is that I usually build many, very
different versions of the same kernel, among which I frequentl
31 matches
Mail list logo
