On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 08:27:36PM -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> Unfortunately. I hope some of those key developers see this is a time to
> "Let's fix our security problems". Ie, GNOME, etc...
Think their view is mainly, "This is to be used on a desktop system, let's rely
on security elsewhere."
Unfortunately. I hope some of those key developers see this is a time to
"Let's fix our security problems". Ie, GNOME, etc...
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, David Ford wrote:
> gnome, kde, enlightenment...these are just a few of the "let's give everyone
> access" utilities.
>
> -d
>
> "Mohammad A. Haqu
gnome, kde, enlightenment...these are just a few of the "let's give everyone
access" utilities.
-d
"Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
> I've got segments showing up with perm 777 and I dont run enlightenment.
> Though they all go away when I guit all apps that use gtk/gnome =)
--
"There is a nat
I've got segments showing up with perm 777 and I dont run enlightenment.
Though they all go away when I guit all apps that use gtk/gnome =)
David Ford wrote:
>
> Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> > Odd, Isn't 777 insecure for shared memory segments?
>
> very. rasterman may make cute stuff, but reliable
Shawn Starr wrote:
> Odd, Isn't 777 insecure for shared memory segments?
very. rasterman may make cute stuff, but reliable in adverse conditions and
secure is completely out of the ballpark.
-d
--
"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
virtue and talent
Keith Packard wrote:
> > Odd, Isn't 777 insecure for shared memory segments?
>
> Yes; Enlightenment does have it's own little set of features...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]XFree86 Core Team SuSE, Inc.
>
I recieved a bunch and bunch of these messages when i run out of shm
segments.
> Odd, Isn't 777 insecure for shared memory segments?
Yes; Enlightenment does have it's own little set of features...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]XFree86 Core Team SuSE, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Odd, Isn't 777 insecure for shared memory segments?
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, David Ford wrote:
> (cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - this
> should be the last post to LKML for this subject)
>
> Known historical items:
>
> -All shm segments get used up in very fast order.
> -Every
David Ford wrote:
> [more to come - dinner calls - please feel free to comment and provide
> information]
It is indeed X's fault. A cursory trace on 4.01b shows an equal amount of
shmat/shmdt at dozens upon dozens per second. 4.01c has just as many shmat
but no shmdt. However it's unclear whe
(cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - this
should be the last post to LKML for this subject)
Known historical items:
-All shm segments get used up in very fast order.
-Everyone noticing it maintains it is 4.01c versioned
-It happens on multiple versions of Linux kernels, 2.2 and 2
10 matches
Mail list logo
