> After some offline discussion, this appears to probably be the case.
> sqlite opens the db file O_RDONLY, and attempts to acquire an fcntl
> F_WRLCK on it, to which it gets EROFS back. Trying to acquire a
> writelock on a file opened readonly doesn't make a lot of sense to me;
> can someone tell
> From: openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org]
> On Behalf Of Marc Dionne
...
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Deason
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:16:48 -0500
> > Andrew Deason wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >> emat.
> -Original Message-
> From: openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org]
> On Behalf Of Ken
> Hornstein
> - Assuming you're using ssh (I am guessing that you are), convince sshd
> to write your Xauthority information somewhere else, like a file
> in /t
> -Original Message-
> From: openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-
> ad...@openafs.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Blaine
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 7:44 PM
> To: openafs-info@openafs.org
> Subject: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS for Windows 1.5.72, Windows 7, VPN session
> killing
>
> As s
> -Original Message-
> From: openafs-info-ad...@openafs.org [mailto:openafs-info-
> ad...@openafs.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Altman
...
>
> On 3/13/2010 11:00 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> > MIT KfW 3.2.2
> > Windows 7 32-bit
> > Cisco VPN 5.0.05.0290
> > Cisco VPN does not exist for 64-bit, a
> There's a version for Solaris, which was last believed to work (I
> don't know of anyone who runs it, though).
Given NFS' lack of any strong authentication, I would have
expected that it always had a limited targeted audience.
> ... There's also a Linux
> version, which is in 1.5.x, but w
> > because sometimes i am me, and sometimes i am not (root).
>
> There are probably psychiatrists who can help you with that.
Why do others always presume that we want help with that?
We are quite happy in here.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-in
> Using kmod's are fine, but dkms can be easier when upgrading kernels.
kmod's vs. dkms vs. kmdl is one of those "religious"
items. Like emacs vs. vi. I will acknowledge that
there are those who have strong opinions on which
kernel module approach to believe in, and arguments
that can support th
> From: Holger Rauch
...
> and would like to know why UDP instead of TCP has been chosen as the
> transport protocol?
The choice of UDP is historical. I would guess that there
were many reasons it was chosen for the original
implementation, many of them would no longer apply with
today's system
> Solaris 8/9 hit the darn near unsupported list from Sun.
> By the time 1.6 reaches production there won't be anyone running it at
> least on production hardware.
Not entirely true. Sun offers extended support contracts for
those that *must* run Solaris 8, and Solaris 10 containers
is available
> Right, but if it is part of the initial 1.6 release, I think people
> will quite a bit more cautious then just replacing binaries anyway
> since it is a major version change then then a .x update.
Not all the people running openAFS will be as knowledgably
(even as to the numbering system of a 1.
This email message:
> You are running a version that is from Feb 2008. There have been
> sixteen releases since then as well as a critical hot fix issued
> by Microsoft. Please upgrade.
resulted in the following thought...
I *really* hate to suggest this (since I often get annoyed
with such so
> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't
> deserve functional apps. Don't cater to them.
It appears you wish the RFCs were strictly implemented.
That is simply not true in the real world Internet, and
if we want to operate optimally in that world, we have to
deal with the
> The impression that I'm getting from the general trends in this area is
> that JSON is displacing YAML as the XML alternative of choice.
I suspect because it can be javascript eval()'ed. JSON, of
course, is a proper subset of YAML. If one does not need
the additional sugar of YAML, JSON can be
> well, if you send the file over the network, i'd want to encrypt it.
I would also want to authenticate it is from a trusted
source (DNS is not the only service for which replies
can be spoofed or a MITM attack can be successful).
Which is back to some sort of file with a shared
key/certificate o
> Now, when I try to compile afs for my kernel to make a kmod package:
> [r...@tx3241-04 SPECS]# rpmbuild openafs.realmkit.spec --target=i686
> Building target platforms: i686
> Building for target i686
> error: Failed build dependencies:
>kernel-devel-i686 = 2.6.27.15-170.2.24.fc10.i686 i
> .. I'd expect IBM's policy not to interfere
> with their Public License (i.e. OpenAFS's license).
Expectations are wonderful things, but should not
be confused with actual licenses and/or conditions
and covenants (especially when future litigations
can be reasonably forseen as a possibility(*))
> While talking about cache-performance (not that I know how
> they really work)
> Would it be beneficial to have a separate Meta-data cache
> from a File-data cache?
If IBM/Sun had not patented it, cache management
using the ARC algorithms would probably be a
great improvement for that, and ot
> As "one big slash" boy I recognize this does not solve the
> world's problems.
zfs changes the way one thinks about file space.
You can still have your "one big slash"(*), and
still use the zfs (soft) partitioning reservations
and quotas out of the same zpool space.
Gary
(*) speaking as a re
> > What is this code trying to do? Is it trying to say don't
> > update the atime of the cache file as this improves performance?
>
> That's the goal. The atime on cache inodes is meaningless. They aren't
> real files.
And while automatic atimeness suspression is desirable,
if one creates a sep
> ... Comments welcome, either privately
> or ideally to openafs-info@openafs.org .
>
> http://www.openafs.org/foundation/gatekeepers.html
I note that item 3 of the gatekeeper responsibilities
could negate the necessity of including the contributor
responsibilities (since item 3 indicates the
> I think that's the sort of agreement that Derrick has in mind
Sorry, I did not interpret it that way.
> ... Personally, I'd rather sign it once rather than
> providing a new copy with each code submission,
> since I can readily agree to something like that.
"Agreeing" each time with a "signe
> As we move to make OpenAFS exist as a legal entity, this process needs
> to be formalized. One possibility would be to have a contributor
> agreement, similar to existing agreements from other projects, which
> at minimum any committer would need to sign. However there may be
> benefit in having
> ... If they so much want a world where software
> is free, why are they choosing to limit those freedoms?
I would say wrong interpretation. The GPL is
not about "freedom", it is about "freedom" :-)
The term has very specific meaning depending
on who is using it, and few define the meaning
t
> I certainly believe that developers are free to choose
> whatever license they wish. Of course, we did not choose
> the IPL10 license for OpenAFS and much of the source code
> predates Linux and its interfaces by more than a decade.
> Even if we wanted to relicense we couldn't.
I agree from a
> > Then again I've also just considered a GPL module that wraps all the
> > GPL-only APIs and just re-exports them. Hey, THAT module is GPL! ;)
> > This whole GPL-only thing is just stupid.
>
> Read http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/NDISwrapper_and_the_GPL
When I read the original "discussion" (bac
> Greetings,
>
> Has anyone else encountered any problems rebuilding openafs-kernel
> against the new fc7 2.6.23 kernel?
>
> $> rpmbuild --rebuild --target=i686 openafs-1.4.4-fc7.3.src.rpm
Unlike some other OS's, many new Linux kernels introduce
new/different interfaces. It is unlikely that
> Huh? How exactly would returning a "security index not supported"
> error instead of just ignoring the packet result in a
> downgrade attack?
I believe it is similar to the CIFS Downgrade Attack scenerio
(Google for it if you are not familiar with this classic
vulnerability).
> The undelete support should be configurable per volume.
I think another desirable option to consider (maybe
not any first implementation) would be configurable
undelete support per directory. At least in my case,
a fair amount of the undelete space would be used
by various browser and email ca
> Even worse, it will be difficult to maintain reiser from jail...
This particular issue has been discussed quite a bit on other
forums (and while was I was personally amused at the idea,
there was even a suggestion posted (wishful thinking?) that
if convicted Hans Reiser may have a lot *more*
> I have found that with the Linksys routers that SSH sessions
> drop after
> 10 or 15 minutes of being idle if the server decides it wants to send
> data to the client. It may be that the NAT will allow the client to
> re-use the same external port if it sends data, but the mapping is
> certai
Actually, while I would agree that getting to the absolutely
correct address might need the source page, RFC 2142 has
a list of the "well known", "expected" email contacts, which
EVERY well run site should redirect to the appropriate person.
For web problems, the RFC 2142 address would be (surpris
SLAC has also seen this (the exact amount of memory
"lost" will vary of course). See the list archive
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2005-November/020136.html
I guess it is useful to know that this is also seen
on Solaris 8 (we were going to test on Solaris 8/9,
but I do not beli
33 matches
Mail list logo
