Am 07.06.2012 16:39, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
> Made ubd_file_size not request write access. Fixes use of read-only images.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Pärtel
Applied!
Thanks,
//richard
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Am 08.06.2012 00:42, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
> Oh, darn, indeed. Well, getting si_code right fixed my immediate problem, but
> I might look at this again some time next week unless you've fixed it
> yourself by then. Thanks!
>
I can wait for your patch.
No need to hurry. :)
Thanks,
//richard
On 06/08/2012 01:07 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 07.06.2012 23:39, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
>> On 06/08/2012 12:26 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>
>>> Am 07.06.2012 22:59, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields
for SIGTRAP, SIG
Am 07.06.2012 23:39, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
> On 06/08/2012 12:26 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> Am 07.06.2012 22:59, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
>>> Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields
>>> for SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGBUS. Specifically, si_addr and si_code
(ack, forgot to reply to list)
On 06/08/2012 12:26 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 07.06.2012 22:59, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
>> Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields
>> for SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGBUS. Specifically, si_addr and si_code
>> are now correct
Am 07.06.2012 22:59, schrieb Martin Pärtel:
> Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields
> for SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGBUS. Specifically, si_addr and si_code
> are now correct where previously they were si_addr = NULL and si_code = 128.
What exactly is broken?
I
Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields
for SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGBUS. Specifically, si_addr and si_code
are now correct where previously they were si_addr = NULL and si_code = 128.
Signed-off-by: Martin Pärtel
---
diff -uprN -X linux-3.4.1/Documentation/d
> What about the not nice ways?
> Having a ugly driver until 3.7 is better than having no driver...
If you are willing to go do the work then yes.
> I'm wondering why does drivers/tty/vt/vt.c work?
> Can't I model the UML driver after it?
Possibly although the vt driver has its own locking model
Am 07.06.2012 18:50, schrieb Alan Cox:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:32:42 +0200
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> Am 07.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Alan Cox:
>>> Yes I know exactly what is going on. However getting a more tolerant
>>> behaviour is going to take a couple more kernels.
>>>
>>
>> So, then ple
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:32:42 +0200
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 07.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Alan Cox:
> > Yes I know exactly what is going on. However getting a more tolerant
> > behaviour is going to take a couple more kernels.
> >
>
> So, then please tell me what's the proper way to fix the U
Am 07.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Alan Cox:
> Yes I know exactly what is going on. However getting a more tolerant
> behaviour is going to take a couple more kernels.
>
So, then please tell me what's the proper way to fix the UML console driver?
- tty_port plus ->hangup() works only with a patched ut
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:18:37 +0200
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Alan, Jiri!
>
> If I omit ->hangup(), mingetty (And all other getty implementations)
> are unable to open /dev/ttyX. open() returns -EIO.
> Currently I'm testing it on FC12.
> Also if I do something like "echo foo >/dev/tty1" it fail
Alan, Jiri!
If I omit ->hangup(), mingetty (And all other getty implementations) are unable
to open /dev/ttyX.
open() returns -EIO.
Currently I'm testing it on FC12.
Also if I do something like "echo foo >/dev/tty1" it fails with -EIO.
And now the strange thing, opening and writing an unknown (un
Made ubd_file_size not request write access. Fixes use of read-only images.
Signed-off-by: Martin Pärtel
---
diff -uprN -X linux-3.4.1/Documentation/dontdiff
linux-3.4.1/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
linux-3.4.1-mod/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
--- linux-3.4.1/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c 2012-06
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:17:24 +0200
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 04.06.2012 23:17, schrieb Alan Cox:
> > We can half ignore it on console for the simple reason that you
> > don't "dial in" to the console. I suspect it may be abusable but
> > I've not found a way to do so.
> >
>
> BTW: Can't we
> Breaking existing applications is a no-go, sorry.
Being insecure should also be a no-no.
Not sure what Jiri thinks but for the moment I think we need to push it
with a module option as to whether hangup on console is enabled or not.
I don't want to just break the existing user space, but leavi
On 06/07/2012 01:52 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> No, it works fine.
>
> Not really. You happen to be lucky. Anyway with no tty port the UML code
> will soon cease to function completely so a solution of some sort is
> needed.
>
This is what I understood. That mainline code moved so far that the cur
> > I really don't get it. You have not broken anything new. Only
> > not fixed all of the problems. Current code does not work for "non-tty0
> > terminals" as well right?
>
> No, it works fine.
Not really. You happen to be lucky. Anyway with no tty port the UML code
will soon cease to function c
On 06/07/2012 01:19 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
> No, it works fine.
>
OK Sorry I missed that part. So you are saying that these patches
fix Fedora, but completely break other systems which now work?
I saw in your cover letter that Debian was fine with or without
->hangup() so I assumed a
Am 07.06.2012 12:14, schrieb Boaz Harrosh:
> On 06/07/2012 12:22 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On 06/07/2012 11:45 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>>>
>>> We cannot push this patch to Linus or -stable.
>>> The problem is that will break other things.
>>> E.g. login on non-tty0 terminals will break if the
On 06/07/2012 12:22 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 11:45 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>
>> We cannot push this patch to Linus or -stable.
>> The problem is that will break other things.
>> E.g. login on non-tty0 terminals will break if the distro uses
>> util-linux's login.
>>
I don't u
Am 07.06.2012 11:19, schrieb Alan Cox:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:17:24 +0200
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> Am 04.06.2012 23:17, schrieb Alan Cox:
>>> We can half ignore it on console for the simple reason that you
>>> don't "dial in" to the console. I suspect it may be abusable but
>>> I've not
Am 07.06.2012 09:35, schrieb Boaz Harrosh:
>
> OK I've run with these for a few days and they are doing
> the Job perfectly. Not a single problem.
Good to know.
> You may add tested-by: Boaz Harrosh
> on all patches if you'd like.
>
> Please push them ASAP to Linus. They fix a real life breaka
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Martin Pärtel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ubd_file_size() was recently patched so that it fails if an image is
> readonly. Patch attached.
Thanks for the patch.
Can you please follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches?
Your patch needs at least a description and a Signed-off-By
On 06/07/2012 10:35 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
<>
>
> Please also CC: Stable Tree for 3.4
> as clearly 3.4 is unusable at all right now.
>
I forgot to ask:
Please CC: me on these patches I would like to be notified
of their advancements into the different trees.
Thanks
Boaz
--
On 06/06/2012 05:20 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 11:27 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
<>
>
>
> Horray I'm back to my old self. Thanks I'll give it a run
> and report of any new problems
>
> Thanks a million Richard
> Boaz
>
OK I've run with these for a few days and they are do
26 matches
Mail list logo
