On Mar 12, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Darren J Moffat
wrote:
> Brian Utterback wrote:
>> I am sponsoring the enclosed fast track for Lubos Kosco. The timer
>> is set to March 17th. Proposal, checklist and man page are
>> enclosed for review.
>> This project requires the installation of Exuberen
>
> Agree, I'm not suggesting changes to Tor code.
>
> Yes, similar to ssh security/tor would need to:
>
> - define firewall_context and firewall_config property groups
> - add some code in its method script to get the port numbers from the
> config file and ask the framework to apply configur
Tony Nguyen wrote:
>
> Wyllys,
>
> With the integration of 2008/580 Solaris host-based firewall, the new
> tor service, with some small changes, can provide fine-grained access
> control to its service and be consistent with existing services. Since
> tor defines listening ports in a configura
Brian Utterback wrote:
> I am sponsoring the enclosed fast track for Lubos Kosco. The timer is
> set to March 17th. Proposal, checklist and man page are enclosed for
> review.
>
> This project requires the installation of Exuberent CTags, LSARC case
> 2008/741. The man page provided is not actu
On 3/12/2009 3:44 PM, Jim Dunham wrote:
> Torrey,
>
>> Jim Dunham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There will be an forthcoming iscsitgt man page describing this
>>> change, and how to make the SCSI-3 PGR data follow the ZFS Storage
>>> Pool, and thus any ZVOLs created out of this storage pool.
>>
>> Is there
Jim Dunham wrote:
>
>
> There will be an forthcoming iscsitgt man page describing this change,
> and how to make the SCSI-3 PGR data follow the ZFS Storage Pool, and
> thus any ZVOLs created out of this storage pool.
Is there a reason this shouldn't be the default behavior?
Brian Cameron wrote:
>
> Wyllys:
>
>> 4.2. Interfaces:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Exported StabilityComments
>>
>>
James Carlson wrote:
> Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
>> James Carlson wrote:
>>> I might have misunderstood what you were saying (because I think
>>> /etc/tor/ as a directory was proposed at one point). If /etc/tor is
>>> just a plain file, then that sounds like the best answer.
>>>
>> I meant to put t
Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > I might have misunderstood what you were saying (because I think
> > /etc/tor/ as a directory was proposed at one point). If /etc/tor is
> > just a plain file, then that sounds like the best answer.
> >
>
> I meant to put the config file (torrc
James Carlson wrote:
> James Carlson writes:
>> Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
>>> OK, I will move it to /etc/tor
>> OK. For what it's worth, since it's just a single file, you might
>> want to consider "/etc/torrc".
>
> I might have misunderstood what you were saying (because I think
> /etc/tor/ as a
Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
> Tony Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> Wyllys,
>>
>> With the integration of 2008/580 Solaris host-based firewall, the new
>> tor service, with some small changes, can provide fine-grained access
>> control to its service and be consistent with existing services. Since
>> tor defines
James Carlson writes:
> Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
> > OK, I will move it to /etc/tor
>
> OK. For what it's worth, since it's just a single file, you might
> want to consider "/etc/torrc".
I might have misunderstood what you were saying (because I think
/etc/tor/ as a directory was proposed at one
Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
> OK, I will move it to /etc/tor
OK. For what it's worth, since it's just a single file, you might
want to consider "/etc/torrc".
> filesystem(5) should probably be updated at some point to reflect its
> current, broader,
> uses - system-wide security settings for crypt
James Carlson wrote:
> Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
>>> It really isn't. /etc/security contains configuration data for
>>> system-wide OS security subsystems like auditing, RBAC, and Trusted
>>> Extensions. Lots of other services have their own security-relevant
>>> configuration settings, but they
Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
> > It really isn't. /etc/security contains configuration data for
> > system-wide OS security subsystems like auditing, RBAC, and Trusted
> > Extensions. Lots of other services have their own security-relevant
> > configuration settings, but they are kept in their own s
Kais,
I have tested that :
Besides physical links, bwm-ng does be able to display the statistics
of vnic , aggregation and vnic over aggregation.
I used netperf to test. the throughput displayed by bwm-ng is the same
as netperf.
I tested it like so:
# dladm create-vnic -l e1000g3 vnic1
#
t is a typo. Sorry.Should be 2.6.
>
> Huie-Ying
>
>
For your reference, attached is the updated spec.
Huie-Ying
-- next part --
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: pyOpenSSL.PSARC.spec.26
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20090312/0f614736/attachment.ksh>
>
> Maybe /etc/tor is a good choice for Solaris.
It could be, I didn't see the need to create another new subdirectory just
to hold 1 file.
>> I put it in /etc/security since it is a security-related config file.
>>
>
> It really isn't. /etc/security contains configuration data for
> system-
Wyllys:
> 4.2. Interfaces:
>
>
>
>Exported StabilityComments
>
>
>SUNWpyth
Scott Rotondo wrote:
>> Deliverables
>>
>> /usr/bin/torSFWUncommitted
>> /usr/bin/tor-resolveSFWUncommitted
>> /usr/bin/tor-gencertSFWUncommitted
>>
>> /etc/security/torrc.sampleSFWUncommitted
>> /usr/share/tor/geoipSFWUncommi
> SMF
> ---
> This project will deliver an SMF manifest and script that will allow
> the tor relay daemon to be restarted via SMF. The SMF service will be:
> svc:/application/security/tor:default (Tor Relay Daemon)
>
Wyllys,
With the integration of 2008/580 Solaris host-based firewall, th
Wyllys Ingersoll writes:
> This case proposes to deliver packages containing the Tor project
> sofware. Tor (https://www.torproject.org) is software lets
> one to participate in a network of virtual tunnels that allow people
> and groups to improve their privacy and security on the internet.
> To
A copy of the torrc.sample file has been put in the case
directory.
-Wyllys
Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> 1. Introduction
> 1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>Tor
> 1.2. N
Torrey,
> Jim Dunham wrote:
>>
>>
>> There will be an forthcoming iscsitgt man page describing this
>> change, and how to make the SCSI-3 PGR data follow the ZFS Storage
>> Pool, and thus any ZVOLs created out of this storage pool.
>
> Is there a reason this shouldn't be the default behavior?
Caijian,
I guess you're saying that bwm-ng shows statistics about physical links.
only.
In that case how come the output of bwm-ng -I e1000g3 came out empty?
Kais
On 03/12/09 00:05, caijian guo - Sun Microsystems - Beijing China wrote:
> Kais,
>
>I have tested that :
> Besides physic
Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
-- next part --
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: LSARC_onpager.txt
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachm
On 03/12/09 13:10, Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
> Brian Cameron wrote:
>>
>> Wyllys:
>>
>>> 4.2. Interfaces:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Exported StabilityComments
>>>
>
Gordon Ross writes:
>
> > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700?
>
> They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever
> turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e.
> if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms
> will be 750. If they don't
> Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700?
They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever
turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e.
if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms
will be 750. If they don't specify either one, the default
d
I forgot to answer the "why 'x' perms?" part (for files).
Two reasons: (1) to avoid surprise - what you normally see now
under an smbfs mount is both files and directories are 755, and
(2) if you want to be able to run anything out of smbfs, you'll
need execute permission, same as with filesystems
> 'fileperms' or 'dirperms'? If the former, why user 'x' permission? And
> why still leave a default dirperms that allows other users to see one's
> file names?
First, to clarify, this question is about things that are NOT changed by
this proposal: the owner permissions, and defaulting the dirp
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
pyOpenSSL 2.6
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: HuieYing Lee
1.3 Date of This Document:
James Carlson wrote:
> Darren J Moffat writes:
>> This project proposes a -d flag for both the list and get sub-commands to
>> the zfs command. The -d option would take a single argument of a Natural
>> number that would allow the commands to recurse to a depth equal to that
>> integer from the
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:04:10PM -0400, Gordon Ross wrote:
>
> > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700?
>
> They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever
> turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e.
> if the user specifies fileperms=640, the defau
Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
>> /etc/security doesn't seem like an appropriate place for Tor's
>> configuration file. Why not put it in /etc/privoxy as it would be on
>> other Linux/UNIX systems?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
> On Linux systems it is in /usr/local/etc/tor - that's the default install
> locat
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:58:11PM -0400, Gordon Ross wrote:
> I forgot to answer the "why 'x' perms?" part (for files).
> Two reasons: (1) to avoid surprise - what you normally see now
> under an smbfs mount is both files and directories are 755, and
> (2) if you want to be able to run anything o
Hi,
The statement below raises a question.
Is the SCSI-3 PGR data associated with the
ZFS storage pool or a specific ZVOL in that zpool ?
A ZFS storage pool can support multiple ZVOLs.
The administrator can only import at the
granularity of the zpool. So it is not possible
for ZVOLs to be import
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:42:11AM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote:
> We propose to change the default "fileperms" to 0700. per:
> CR 6800703 smbfs default permissions may lead to surprises
> The release binding is: Patch.
'fileperms' or 'dirperms'? If the former, why user 'x' permission?
> Deliverables
>
> /usr/bin/tor SFW Uncommitted
> /usr/bin/tor-resolve SFW Uncommitted
> /usr/bin/tor-gencert SFW Uncommitted
>
> /etc/security/torrc.sampleSFW Uncommitted
> /usr/share/tor/geoip SFW Uncommitted
>
> /
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
> 1. Introduction
> 1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>zfs list -d and zfs get -d
> 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
>Author: Chris G
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
Tor
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Wyllys Ingersoll
1.3 Date of This Document:
12 Ma
This case was approved at the meeting on March 11.
Update the IAM file to reflect this.
alan.
Alan Hargreaves wrote:
> I am sponsoring this Update Fast Track for behalf of James McPherson.
>
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
> This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsys
> > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700?
>
> They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever
> turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e.
> if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms
> will be 750. If they don't specify either one, th
Ellard,
> ToJim and PSARC
> From Ellard Roush
> Subject iSCSI Target PGR directory for ZVOLs
> [PSARC/2009/168 Self Review]
>
> The Sun Cluster product uses SCSI-3 PGR for both Fencing
> and Quorum operations. Sun Cluster also uses SCSI-2,
> but that is not a subje
I'm sponsoring the following for fast-track approval. The need for this
case came up at rather the last minute, and to maintain planned push
schedules we need a very short timeout - I'm asking for 14:00 Pacific
tomorrow, Friday March 13, the end of the business day on the East Coast
where the
Hi Jim,
way below...
Jim Dunham wrote:
> Ellard,
>
>> To Jim and PSARC
>> From Ellard Roush
>> Subject iSCSI Target PGR directory for ZVOLs
>> [PSARC/2009/168 Self Review]
>>
>> The Sun Cluster product uses SCSI-3 PGR for both Fencing
>> and Quorum operations. Sun Cluster also uses SCSI-2,
>> but
Darren J Moffat writes:
> This project proposes a -d flag for both the list and get sub-commands to the
> zfs command. The -d option would take a single argument of a Natural number
> that would allow the commands to recurse to a depth equal to that integer
> from the dataset specified.
Assumin
To Jim and PSARC
FromEllard Roush
Subject iSCSI Target PGR directory for ZVOLs
[PSARC/2009/168 Self Review]
The Sun Cluster product uses SCSI-3 PGR for both Fencing
and Quorum operations. Sun Cluster also uses SCSI-2,
but that is not a subject of this case.
At thi
Thanks for the information.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
zfs list -d and zfs get -d
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Chris Gerhard
1.3 Date of This Doc
50 matches
Mail list logo
