Slashdot Mirror

vger.kernel.org is listed by spamcop. This is the linux mailling list.

Someone says
FYI, the open-source SpamCop project was killed. Some other
organization claimed the name and became just another Net Nazi.

Okay... This is the result of a cursory check, do your homework folks!

• CAN-2004-0003
  
  The R128 DRI bounds checking bug is a potential local root exploit.
  According to this patch 2.4.26 contains the fix.
  
  
• CAN-2004-0109
  
  The isofs bug. It is locally exploitable iff you have hardware access or if you can induce someone to mount a compromised medium.
  
  
• CAN-2004-0177
  
  The ext3 information leak. It cannot lead to any exploit and has only the tiniest chances of giving an attacker any usable information.
  
  
• CAN-2004-0178
  
  The SoundBlaster Denial of Service.
  

But no, no mremap issues...

</KARMA>

Well as you point out there are two problems, the file system support (and moving a file from one file system to another while preserving metadata), and operating system support.

If you have file system support it works very well on one machine, however when you move files across file systems which don't support this metadata and back again (unfortunately inevitable right now, particularly with lots of windows servers, FTP etc), you'll lose all that information, which seems a shame. Still, as you point out, perhaps the way to go is to adopt a file system that supports extended metadata and hope the rest of the world follows. It'd be nice to have more metadata than just a mime type, there are loads of other things that'd be useful - among them versioning, username, application specific stuff etc.

I was thinking bundles would be handy as they *only* require a change at the operating system level, not the file system level, and they would persist even across metadata agnostic filesystems. Of course you'd have to give the user the choice of what to do when copying to such a system - copy just the flat file or copy it within the bundle folder for use by others with a bundle aware operating system.

Though I understand your reservations about bundles (eg they might seem like overkill for a simple text file), if they were a standard feature enforced by an operating system, all of a sudden all apps would know about them (and legacy ones would just get handed the file reference inside the bundle and never know, thus solving your problem with AIFFs). The user wouldn't have to deal with the question of opening packages to get at the contents (unless they wanted to).

PS

.DS_Store files are metadata - the position of the files in the finder window etc. though perhaps you wouldn't expect this to be preserved across file systems. I didn't mean to imply that they were used for resource forks.

Resource forks held/hold a mixture of what should really be meta-data (icons, file previews, version, associated files for app etc), and other stuff like images etc for apps, so they're kind of strange, but they are used on classic mac OS systems for storing info about the file (among other things).

Haven't read all of this, but this looks an interesting perspective on where file systems are headed, though heavy on XML I'm sure this stuff has been discussed many times before by people who know a lot more than me, but thanks for playing : >

I grew up in Illinois, next door to your state, and we had more than our share of community colleges and "direction" schools as we called them. Tuition at all of our public schools was compairable, I went to U of I. because it was the best one I could get into. Are you telling me that USI is substantially cheaper than Purdue or Indiana University? Purdue in particular has excelent engineering programs.

Unfortunatly I agree with the parent, during my time at UIUC I saw the CS program (which I was not in, I minored in CS and majored in TAM) get a lot easier at the freshaman level, and now all the kids that were switching to business majors the year I took the intro CS class, were passing, and they are going to start taking advanced classes were they will severly slow the learning of those who deserved to be there, or have to switch majors in their 3rd or 4rth year...

The Indiana Daily Student is also reporting that Indiana students' names have also been subpoenaed.

The article also mentions that the university has recently revised its' policy for dealing with copyright infringement complaints. Students are required to take delete offending material and 'filesharing quiz' or face losing network access.

The article metions that these subpoenas have gone out to 21 universities.

Also, has "128Mb swap limit" been surpassed in Lunix-land?

I had to rescue data from a Novell fileserver that had become corrupt, and NWFS was invaluable in doing so. But, I had to compile an ancient kernel specifically for that purpose.

If Novell really is committed to Linux, perhaps they can shed some light on this murky topic.

Andre Hedrick's concerns

Netware Utils

Kernel patches for 2.4.15

I should have said Linksys, which is now owned by Cisco systems. If you remember, a little while back they were found to be violating the GPL.

Linux-Kernel Archive: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations
Linksys GPL issues raise embedded concerns

So, some Cisco/Linksys products do use Linux and probably Netfilter. These products are more relevant to the discussion at hand (home, small business users).

Still I wouldnt trade in Slacks pkgtool, togetehr with zpkgtool frontend it makes my newbie friends happy.

The native instruction set isn't well-suited to host an operating system (see also Linus's take, it's too much of a moving target (TM changes it all the time and keeps the frontends stable; without this flexibility they would be entirely lost), and compiling for the native instruction set would eliminate all the benefits of code morphing (the dynamic optimizations, etc). Efficeon has a lot of potential; here's hoping Transmeta can get bugs sorted out and become competitive.

> And for the anti-FORTRAN fraction. It is still the fastest thing out there!!! Anyone who tried solving a system of linear equations containing 1000 equations knows what I mean.

I beg to differ.
At least, about the linear algebra part. There are some very fast numeric libraries out there. I mean, its not like you are wroting the code to solve the equations in Fortran yourself.

link 1

link 2

Unless somebody else used the same name of course, but this does lend some credibility to his claims

The RPC and DCOM changes are much more likely to have wider impacts - especially for enterprise applications.

The ICF changes are fairly light (unfortunately in my view) and not that hard for end users\admins to modify so even if there are issues workarounds will be fairly simple.

Darl mentioned that "last summer" some Linux programmers admitted there was some stolen code in the kernel.

That's easy: it was Christoph Hellwig and he said:

It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

I personally have been using the scripts found at the Linux Radio Timeshift HOWTO for a few months now, and it does the job perfectly. You can listen to a freshly created MP3 as it's still being recorded. Used in combination with a script such as this, you can stream them shoutcast-style from anywhere.

Since there was only one AM radio tuner for a PC that I could find (and it was USB), I installed an external tuner. It ends up looking really cool to have a 1u rackmount tuner in your rack. Of course if I ever wish to tune to another station, a robotic arm must be built, but I'm content for now.

--falz

One of the times this has come up on the kernel list. You can see this in thread view search the page for BSD and read the entire thread if you want.

One of the times this has come up on the kernel list. You can see this in thread view search the page for BSD and read the entire thread if you want.

This is gcc 2.96 ?? This problem has been reported multiple times. Yes, you need a different gcc version, or there are a couple of patches around that split up the code around line 398 into smaller pieces that gcc 2.96 can handle.

346,348c346
< res = sprintf(buffer,"%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %lu %lu \
< %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d %ld %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu \
< %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %lu %lu\n",
---
> res = sprintf(buffer,"%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %lu %lu ",
358c356,357
< task->min_flt,
---
> task->min_flt);
> res += sprintf(buffer + res, "%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d %ld %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu ",
378c377,378
< esp,
---
> esp);
> res += sprintf(buffer + res, "%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %lu %lu\n",
416a417
>

Those guarantees are what a license is for. If I need to call every author of code I want to use, I might as well use proprietary stuff. One of the main points of free software is that you can use it without asking the author.

Oh, I completely agree. Of course, this is a non-sequitur, as it also has nothing to do with my post. I was simply responding to the idea that an author can turn around and sue you after saying he wouldn't.

However, Linus is not at all the only copyright holder on the kernel source. And I doubt if these statements are legally binding, even for Linus. He just tries to tell how he interprets the license. I remember him saying on a mailinglist that those statements don't legally mean anything, they just explain what he thinks the license is saying. If tomorrow he changes his mind, you may have a problem. If Alan Cox (or any other copyright holder on part of the kernel) doesn't agree with Linus' interpretation, you may have a problem as well.

Well, Linus seems to disagree. See here and here. Granted, Linus ain't no legal authority, but I'd assume he's not *completely* out to lunch. :) Of course, the Linux kernel is just one situation, and so this discussion may not apply to all projects. But it's not nearly so black and white as one might think.

Those guarantees are what a license is for. If I need to call every author of code I want to use, I might as well use proprietary stuff. One of the main points of free software is that you can use it without asking the author.

Oh, I completely agree. Of course, this is a non-sequitur, as it also has nothing to do with my post. I was simply responding to the idea that an author can turn around and sue you after saying he wouldn't.

However, Linus is not at all the only copyright holder on the kernel source. And I doubt if these statements are legally binding, even for Linus. He just tries to tell how he interprets the license. I remember him saying on a mailinglist that those statements don't legally mean anything, they just explain what he thinks the license is saying. If tomorrow he changes his mind, you may have a problem. If Alan Cox (or any other copyright holder on part of the kernel) doesn't agree with Linus' interpretation, you may have a problem as well.

Well, Linus seems to disagree. See here and here. Granted, Linus ain't no legal authority, but I'd assume he's not *completely* out to lunch. :) Of course, the Linux kernel is just one situation, and so this discussion may not apply to all projects. But it's not nearly so black and white as one might think.

The Intel Inside campaign was used to create a marketing brand that has clearly worked very well, you seem to think the P5-Pentium clearly outclassed the opposition when it was introduced - it did not.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

1. Exhibit one.This is how such topics get started.
2. exhibit two. Linus speaking about this exact topic.
   Unless I *really do* have a reading comprehension problem, I interpret the part where he says "It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. " as 'It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story.'
   but I could be wrong... not.
3. Exhibit three.
4. Linus again

Oh yeah, I got one more thing to add:
BOO YAAA motherfucker.

Next time you step up to me, you better come correct.

...and me with mod points.

i never thought i would quote linus torvalds, but in this case, you are a weasel.

you're right to say that the GPL does not have the word 'obfuscate' in it.

you're wrong in that code obfuscation is deliberately making something into an unpreferred form, namely, a form where it is not clear what the hell is going on, and hence effective/correct changes are difficult to make. how much more explcit do you want it to be?

as analogy (and normally i hate argument by analogy, it substitutes intuition for proof) no law (where i am, at least) explicitly forbids you from pointing a loaded firearm in my direction, either, but it's not something you're allowed to do (where i am, at least), and something that even morons can figure out you're not supposed to do, which is why they're not locked up.

damn ac's...such a necessary evil...

At least acording to Linus .

Please someone tell me why I have been moderated as troll(parent post). I am just curious. Has this problem been solve already? Am I worrying for nothing?

I don't understant it seems like a legitimate concern to me. I search in google and found the following things concerning this issue:

this

this

this

this

so it has been discused plenty but it is far from being resolved. Meanwhile the companies try to stretch more and more the meaning of the GPL.

Common bugs in both IP stack examples noted here.

More, but not as many accusations.

The details in these links seem to be more useful than statements that are too empty or too broad. I was surprised that concrete evidence of rampant code copying relevant to the IP stack from BSD was not very easy to find. "Urban legend" is an overstatment because there is some truth that some things relevant to the IP stack were copied, but the scale probably has been exagerrated.

Does anyone know if either 3.3 or 3.4 c/t have had the iswraid patched against their kernel so one can access raid arrays created by the Intel ICH5-R?

I would check but their forums are kind of slow right now for some reason ;-)

LW.

The advantages you've listed just aren't that important against C++:

• Compex numbers aren't built-in, but who cares? C++ classes let you do anything you can do with a primitive type, both as far as optimizations are concerned and syntactically (through operator overloading)
• Likewise, multidimensional arrays can have all the syntactic sugar you want, through magical things like boost::multi_array.
• I don't know as much about the parallel stuff, but obviously a lot of thought has gone into doing that kind of thing in C++. Intel also has a compiler that will auto-parallelize C++ (and Fortran), though I've never played with it.

It's very commonly said that Fortran is faster than any other language. I don't think that's actually true. This article, written back in July '97, talks about a lot of other techniques possible in C++ to close the performance gap and even outperform Fortran. And in the seven years since, C++ compilers have improved greatly, and these techniques have been widely adopted. There are a lot more papers here.

Further nitpick:

They do not prohibit non-IBM mini-PCI card use, but (I am told) the bios will disable/not allow cards other than the Centrino Intel wireless, the IBM a/b (or a/b/g) wireless, and the Cisco Wifi.

Seeing as they used bios goofyness to hide the rescue partition at the end of the hard drive, this would not surpise me.

See URL:
kernel archive email

So long as you use one of those cards, You should be fine.

I knew they were up to something when this mail appeared on the linux-kernel mailing list in 2000. 4.3 GHz, indeed!

I don't know what all the smartass comments about cassette tapes are about... I still keep a cassette deck around to play the odd mix tape, but taping radio to cassette is obviously not the solution you're looking for.

What you want, of course, is a Tivo-like consumer device for time-shifting radio shows. This is entirely reasonable. I want one, too. There are several community and college radio shows in my area that I miss every week because of work, and such a solution would be ideal for my situation. Anyway, I don't know of a Tivo-like device for radio, but FM tuners for your PC aren't too hard to find, and given some spare GBs of hard drive space, it's easy enough to cook up a solution:

• Gary Burd: Time-shifting FM radio
• Todd Veldhuizen: Linux Radio Timeshift HOWTO

I've been meaning to do this myself for a while.

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0011 .1/0909.html

> > I noticed that the ip_vs.h include is not in the main kernel tree or ip
> > virtual switch support while I was attempting to buid the pirahnna web
> > server. Is this module a patch located somewhere else on
> > ftp.kernel.org.
>
> Jeff,
> Red Hat started included the IPVS patches from
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ starting with RH6.1 (I believe). You
> can find the patch they use in the kernel src.rpm, or go get the patch
> from the URL listed above.

Dax,

Thanks. I noticed the pirahna web server rpm would rebuild unless the
kernel had this patch. I was wondering why it wasn't in the stock kernels
since it's GPL. We may want to consider including it.

Things change and evolve. So far I know of two distinct versions of EFI. The EFI that has been so nicely described by Mark Doran. And the version I have actually used with is quite a different animal.

Things change and evolve. So far I know of two distinct versions of EFI. The EFI that has been so nicely described by Mark Doran. And the version I have actually used with is quite a different animal.

From the Linux Kernel Archive:

> The original errno.h, from linux-0.01, says it was taken from minix, and goes
> up to 40.

Good eyes - I only analysed the ctype.h thing, and didn't look up errno.h in the original sources. errno.h has a _big_ comment saying where the numbers came from (and some swearwords about POSIX ;)

Looking at signal.h, those numbers also seem to largely match minix. Which makes sense - I actually had access to them.

In both cases it's only the numbers that got copied, though. And not all of them either - for some reason I tried to make the signal numbers match (probably lazyness - not so much that I cared about the numbers themselves, but about the list of signal names), but for example the SA_xxxx macros - in the very same file - bear no relation to the minix ones.

Linus

Conclusion:

Quote: In other words, I think we can totally _demolish_ the SCO claim that these 65 files were somehow "copied". They clearly are not.

Click Here

Regarding the usefulness of the other protection rings on the Intel, it would appear Linus doesn't quite agree with your assessment. To quote:

" I suspect that the _real_ answer is that ring 1/2 are just fundamentally useless, and it has nothing to do with x86 implementation semantics or anything else."

Or you could pay someone else to do it.

Not on my budget, I can't.

Besides, since early 2.5 kernel development, fixing old SCSI drivers has been more or less prominently on the must-fix list and has stayed there ever since.

Apart from the SCSI problems, I have been very happy with a very fast 2.6.0-test11 on an ancient Dual Pentium 133 (HP Vectra XU 5/90), so I can't wait (or actually I can and will have to wait) for something like 2.6.4 until that system really roars again.

Correction: in my previous post I, of course, meant to write 'DMA-mapped', not 'mmapped' (whatever the difference may be).

---cut---
Desktops and laptops may have more trouble at this time because of the much wider range of hardware and because of as-yet unimplemented fixes for the hardware and BIOS bugs from which these machines tend to suffer.

During the 2.6.0 stabilization period a significant number of less serious fixes have accumulated in various auxiliary kernel trees and these shall be merged into the 2.6 stream after the 2.6.0 release. Many of these fixes appear in Andrew Morton's "-mm" tree (...)
---cut---

Here are more details from Andrew Morton, including links to buglists for 2.6.0.

Here

...snip...

And this from one of the more bleeding-edge dists no less.

Indeed. Bleeding edge often means instability; I have heard some of the freakiest XFS problems from Gentoo users. Problems that often go away when they revert to the stock kernel, so I have to wonder what all Gentoo is doing in their kernel.

Considering that so many of the people who clamor for xfs (imx) are kids...

Indeed. Would those be the kids at Fermilab or the kids at NASA? Maybe the newbies at the Salk Institute or at Incyte Genomics. Perhaps you were thinking of the know-nothings at Quantum or the meddlers at Echostar...

I'm sure if SGI actually cleans up the interface it'll go in but who knows if _that_ will ever happen.

Please also offer some pointers on which parts of the "interface" you feel should be cleaned up.

As you can read here and here there seems to be strange things going on with memory management in the new Kernel, so please beware and protect your data. By the way, this is probably not related to PREEMPT.

As you can read here and here there seems to be strange things going on with memory management in the new Kernel, so please beware and protect your data. By the way, this is probably not related to PREEMPT.