Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
The whole scanner as removable media thing was a total distraction/red
herring.
Project team (or Darren?): is there a portable way with libsane to reset
a scanner to its power-on-default or factory-default configuration? Or
does this require scanner-model-specific
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
The project team and Joerg are in agreement that it is going through
the SFW consoldation. The plan is to deviate as little as possible
from the upstream community.
The outstanding issue is the rmt and auditing. Once we have reviewed
that issue we will have a
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
The project team and Joerg are in agreement that it is going through
the SFW consoldation. The plan is to deviate as little as possible
from the upstream community.
The outstanding issue is the rmt and auditing. Once we have reviewed
that issue we will have
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
The project team and Joerg are in agreement that it is going through
the SFW consoldation. The plan is to deviate as little as possible
from the upstream community.
The outstanding issue is the rmt and
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:43:18PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
My point is that *sh, rdist and others do not audit. So why should
rmt? What decisions does it make? It is not a remote access granting
program.
Joerg's version of
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Garrett D'Amore gdamore at sun.com wrote:
My point is that *sh, rdist and others do not audit. So why should
rmt? What decisions does it make? It is not a remote access granting
program.
Joerg's version of rmt does control access though -- providing further
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:01:36AM +1000, James C. McPherson wrote:
Hi Eric,
Could we get some common status code mappings / handlers
added to ses2.h? Something common that makes use of the
definitions in ses2_dl_ucode_status would probably be a
good thing.
I'm not sure what you're
Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
Joerg's version of rmt does control access though -- providing further
limits (beyond what rsh/ssh/rexec do), as it has an access control
database of its own, which can be used to disallow it from being used by
any but certain named users.
Is there
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 10:58:05PM -0700, David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote:
That said, what I'd like to see (and this was discussed I think in the
earlier Apache upgrade and PHP cases) is limiting the number of
outstanding versions to a very small number.
Like Stephen has mentioned a couple of
Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
Joerg's version of rmt does control access though -- providing further
limits (beyond what rsh/ssh/rexec do), as it has an access control
database of its own, which can be used to disallow it from being used by
any but certain named users.
Is there
Danek Duvall writes:
They do it presumably for the same reasons several of the OpenSolaris
project teams have felt the need, which is to provide stability within a
given major release family while at the same time making the
newer-generation apps available.
I'd like to take the
--
I'm sponsoring the following case for myself. This case qualifies for
Architectural self-review, but I wish to record the following
information.
--
Rod Evans wrote:
--
I'm sponsoring the following case for myself. This case qualifies for
Architectural self-review, but I wish to record the following
information.
Rod Evans wrote:
I'm sponsoring the following case for myself. This case qualifies for
Architectural self-review, but I wish to record the following
information.
[snip]
User Commands elfwrap(1)
NAME
elfwrap - wrap data in an ELF file
Danek Duvall wrote:
And I understand why those are that way. But I'm not asking about why it's
done in general (like you said, this isn't the apache case), but about this
particular case. Does lighthttpd need to be treated the same way? Is
there a rich community of end-user plugins for
A request from the ddi folks (6675591), for a means of wrapping firmware
updates into an object that can be easily loaded by a device driver, has
triggered the creation of a new generic utility, elfwrap(1). The new
elfwrap(1) man page says it all. Plus, an update to ddli_modopen(9f)
Roland Mainz wrote:
Rod Evans wrote:
I'm sponsoring the following case for myself. This case qualifies for
Architectural self-review, but I wish to record the following
information.
[snip]
User Commands elfwrap(1)
NAME
elfwrap - wrap
I am sponsoring this fast track for myself.
Requested binding is minor, timeout 03/24/2008.
-Artem
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
libhal support for GNOME
James Carlson wrote:
Danek Duvall writes:
They do it presumably for the same reasons several of the OpenSolaris
project teams have felt the need, which is to provide stability within a
given major release family while at the same time making the
newer-generation apps available.
Nicolas Williams Nicolas.Williams at sun.com wrote:
Is there auditing for the access control that is controlled by ~/.rhosts and
/etc/ssh/sshd_config?
Yes (see Darren's response).
The more interesting question is whether rmt is setuid [or re-execs
itself through pfexec(1)]. If it isn't
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:56:04PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams Nicolas.Williams at sun.com wrote:
Is there auditing for the access control that is controlled by ~/.rhosts
and
/etc/ssh/sshd_config?
Yes (see Darren's response).
The more interesting question is
Also, I did search the archive of this case (not exhaustively though --
it's 240+ e-mails already!) for the answer. And whether rmt is setuid
or executed via pfexec is a very important architectural issue that must
be documented to the ARC, not in source code. I think use the source,
Luke
If rmt is not setuid, nor does it re-exec via pfexec, would the auditing
of rmt
still be required?
The goal is not to diverge much from Joerg's source base.
The project team has agreed that if this is a requirement, then we have
a few options:
1) We could just not ship /etc/default/rmt.
Nico, we will provide the info that you requested.
Margot
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Also, I did search the archive of this case (not exhaustively though --
it's 240+ e-mails already!) for the answer. And whether rmt is setuid
or executed via pfexec is a very important architectural issue that
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Also, I did search the archive of this case (not exhaustively though --
it's 240+ e-mails already!) for the answer. And whether rmt is setuid
or executed via pfexec is a very important architectural issue that must
be documented to the ARC, not in source code. I think
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:14:48PM -0700, Margot Miller wrote:
If rmt is not setuid, nor does it re-exec via pfexec, would the
auditing of rmt still be required?
I guess if rmt could be forced on the user (e.g., as the user's shell,
or via the command option for authorized_keys entries (see
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 07:20:17PM +, Amanda Waite wrote:
I've been thinking about the options, a single config file shared between
multiple versions won't work if the user wanted to run more than one
release simultaneously.
You really need to have the main config file be an SMF config
I am sponsoring this FastTrack for Sean Feole and Shidokht Yadegari.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
Solaris Dual Boot Pre-install
1.2. Name of Document
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:46PM -0700, Mike Shapiro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:17AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you don't know, such a library already exists since August 1986, so why
should there be another one.
Solaris is allowed to have whatever namespace of whatever
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:32:46PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Well...
While working on the SQLite3 integration into SFW Mike Sullivan
requested that a heads up be sent to the w-team just in case there are
library name conflicts elsewhere. Mike (Sullivan) went so far as to
assert that
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:32:46PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:19:46PM -0700, Mike Shapiro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:07:17AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you don't know, such a library already exists since August 1986, so
why
should there be
I am sponsoring the following case on behalf of Vikram Hegde
as a fast-track with timeout set to 03/24/2008.
The project requests minor/patch binding.
findroot - biosdev replacement
==
I am sponsoring this case for Reed Liu and marking it closed approved
automatic
based on a completed (preliminary) checklist in the case directory.
-- mark
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI
This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1.
Margot Miller wrote:
If rmt is not setuid, nor does it re-exec via pfexec, would the auditing
of rmt
still be required?
The goal is not to diverge much from Joerg's source base.
Ken said in another email that rmt does not run with privilege, acquired
via setuid or pfexec. Can I also assume
of
the original message.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080317/e343c1ce/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name
Scott,
Thanks for your input.
Comments embedded below.
Margot
Scott Rotondo wrote:
Margot Miller wrote:
If rmt is not setuid, nor does it re-exec via pfexec, would the
auditing of rmt
still be required? The goal is not to diverge much from Joerg's
source base.
Ken said in another
Okay. I don't like the road we're walking down, but I'm not going to
derail this case over it, and will let it time out tomorrow without further
comment.
Danek
37 matches
Mail list logo
