Slashdot Mirror


What to Expect from Linux 2.6.12

apt-get writes "Saw this Linuxworld report from the annual Australian Linux conference, Linux.conf.au, in Canberra last week. The article outlines some of the new features we can expect for the 2.6.12 kernel release, including: support for trusted computing, and security enhanced Linux. The kernel developers are also working on improving the 'feel' of the Linux desktop with inotify for file managers and events notification so hardware 'just works'. Unfortunately no release date other than 'sometime soon' is given."

87 of 505 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by qwertphobia · · Score: 3, Funny

    does this mean I can tust my computer now?

    we've had a growing apart since it started cheating on me and got a virus :-(

    --
    Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    1. Re:Yay! by Brento · · Score: 5, Funny

      does this mean I can tust my computer now?

      Not if you're using the spell checker at the moment, no.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
  2. Trusted Computing by khujifig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is the inclusion of trusted computing a good thing here? Many people in the /. crowd didn't seem to like the idea of it's inclusion in Windows...

    Was its inclusion in the kernel by choice?

    1. Re:Trusted Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trusted Computing is just a technology and like probably all technology it can be used to do something good with it (make computers safer), or something bad (take control away from the user to enforce DRM, for example).

      As the former seems to be what the inclusion in the Linux kernel is about, I think it's a good thing. And remeber, it's a free system, so you'll always have the choice not to use it or only use what you want to use it for.

    2. Re:Trusted Computing by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And remeber, it's a free system, so you'll always have the choice not to use it or only use what you want to use it for.

      Sure you'll have a choice if you decide to compile your own kernel. But I don't see grandma or uncle bob downloading theirs from kernel.org and compiling it from source. I don't oppose it's inclusion in the tree but I think if money is involved (RIAA and MPAA have deep pockets), it won't be too difficult to persuade some of the more user-friendly distros to compile a stock kernel with trusted computing compiled in.

      I guess I just believe that computer scientists have a responsibility to protect users from malicious and sneaky actions that violate their rights as computer users. Or maybe I just have a pessimistic view of society.

    3. Re:Trusted Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a different thing. The 'trusted computing' in Windows is all about DRM, preventing you from getting access to data on your machine.

      The 'trusted computing' in Linux 2.6.12 is about being able to run a process that is restricted in what it can do (read and write to a pipe, essentially), so that you can run an arbitary downloaded binary without worrying that it will do bad things. (think: distributed.net, SETI, etc).

    4. Re:Trusted Computing by madaxe42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      do something good with it (make computers safer)

      Call me silly, but how is 'making computers safer' a good thing? I don't *need* protecting from the big bad wide world, there are enough intrusions into my life to make it 'safer' as it is - each and almost every one of them pisses me off.

    5. Re:Trusted Computing by paulpach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. Trusted computing is a very good thing. This is some of the things you can expect:

      When you compile or install a software, you can sign it. The computer will not execute anything that is not signed. This stops many viruses and trojan horses, so you can trust that you authorized everything the computer executes. It is just a security layer just like the no execution bit.

      The important thing here is that the user is in full control of the system. The user gets to sign the packages or he can choose to use a distro that signs them for him. He chooses what the computer runs and what not. There is no third party that limits what the user can/cannot execute.

      Besides signing software, TCPA (the chip that is going to be supported by the kernel) does encryption on hardware. So you can have hardware accelerated encryption/decryption, and your CPU will be free to do other things. This is not much different from hardware accelerated 2d & 3d graphics. Again, this is a very good thing.

      Many people opose trusted computer because they confuse this with DRM (Digital rights management). DRM is technology that limits the right to open media. Trusted computer does not limit your rights at all. The confusion arises from the fact that microsoft plans to use TCPA (Trusted computer) to implement DRM.

      TCPA support will totally be optional. You can enable/disable it when compiling the kernel. You normally want it enabled to take advantage of hw accelerated encryption, but if you are still paranoid (read misinformed) and think there is some evil corporation that is going to use TCPA to limit your rights, you can just turn it off.

      There is a nice article from ibm that clarifies the issue

    6. Re:Trusted Computing by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As much as I would like it to be so, I don't know any grandmas or uncle bobs that install their own Linux machine. All the grandmas and uncle bobs that I know don't even know how to install windows (not that's it's necessarily easier but it is the general perception). They either get it shipped with the OS or get their grandson/cousin to install it.
      those who get it with the PC most probably will end up with windows anyway. The others will have the support of the half geek to either install a distribution that fits their TC needs or download/patch/recompile the kernel of those that don't.

    7. Re:Trusted Computing by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is the inclusion of trusted computing a good thing here? Many people in the /. crowd didn't seem to like the idea of it's inclusion in Windows...

      I think the complaints about locking machines down are more in who gets the keys...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    8. Re:Trusted Computing by zootm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you don't need protection, don't turn it on. I assume that the kernel segments that deal with trusted computing will be able to be compiled out, and you'll be fine. As for the fact that it'll probably be included by default on many systems, I have to say that I don't consider "safe by default" a fallacy in any way.

    9. Re:Trusted Computing by finkployd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trusted computing as a whole is a good thing, with one componant that is a very bad thing: Remote attestation. This will allow remote systems to know exactly what software you are using to connect to them (cryptographically, so no spoofing it unless you are really good at factoring large primes :)

      The nightmare scenerio is far beyond the typical DRM use case that most slashdotters fret about. Imagine if Microsoft wanted to ensure that only "trusted" client can connect to windows file sharing services, ie lock out Samba. Or make it so that only IE can connect to IIS webservers.

      Sure they may not, but they are building the technology to allow this to happen and if ever they fall upon hard times, they will be legally obligated to their shareholders to take any advantages they can to ensure profits.

    10. Re:Trusted Computing by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many activeX controls have to be signed for them to run, and they have no trouble getting signed by very high profile companies such as VeriSign. Signing files doesn't prove anything. To get real security, you should run it in a sandbox. When a sandbox is properly implemented, you don't have to worry about whether the code is signed or not.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:Trusted Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, exactly that. It can compute, take input, and return output, but nothing else.

      It's like running an application in a very locked-down sandbox.

    12. Re:Trusted Computing by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you might have good judgment, but is your box an island?
      In the case of cars, traffic lights, while an admitted PITA, do make commuting possible.
      Or are you one of those just-put-in-a-roundabout Brits? :)

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    13. Re:Trusted Computing by Blapto · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're a *nix user, think really cool chroot jail.

    14. Re:Trusted Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right about TCPA, but the 'trusted computing' stuff going into 2.6.12 has *nothing* to do with TCPA support - it's more like a fancy chroot jail for a specific class of untrusted processes.

    15. Re:Trusted Computing by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'd bet the "majority of exploits" are social-engineering attacks where users are tricked into running email attachments, installing software from a webpage, or installing spyware bundles like Kazaa.

      The solution for this is an easily configurable sandbox, which the vapor factory in Redmond says they are working on. Maybe "Sandboxed computing" is a better term, but the DoD called it "trusted computing", so that's what we're stuck with.

      "Sandbox computing" also has little relationship to the trusted key storage, bootloader verification and other planned DRM features (as far as I can tell). But its fun to conflate the two ideas for FUD and profit.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    16. Re:Trusted Computing by finkployd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't argue with that, but it seems that remote attestation will allow them to comply with the letter of the law (even publishing all protocol specs) and still lock out competition.

      Finkployd

    17. Re:Trusted Computing by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC: It isn't usefull by itself, but if you combine it with ExecShield and SELinux it could be a useful security layer.

      Or, you could just combine ExecShield and SELinux by themselves and have a useful security layer, without needing Trusted Computing at all.

      Brushing aside the minor side-features, Trusted Computing is really about tamper-resistant hardware enforcing the signatures of software on the PC. The main use of that is preventing the legal and physical owner of that PC from hacking programs on his own computer, so that RIAA music publishers can continue to trust it.

    18. Re:Trusted Computing by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is some of the things you can expect:

      Already, we see software design flaws. Just because you mention there are multiple things tells us that it's not a clean system, and that it ignores the traditional Unix dictate: "Do one thing, and do it well".

      You list the user blocking unsigned programs from running, and you also list hardware-accelerated encryption. Those are two entirely different features, and there is no good reason why they should be part of the same system. If I desire either of those, I should be able to install it individually.

      More importantly, you ignored the most important feature of Trusted Computing: remote attestation. Indeed, it is to support RA that "Trusted" hardware will be built at all- if it was just about the OS not running unsigned programs, that could be implemented in pure software. And the encryption-accelerator is just a bonus feature they tossed in, "As long as we're stamping new chips anyhow". RA says you can prove to remote individuals that you are only running software signed by them, so content publishers can prohibit the use of 3rd party programs to view their data.

      Vendor lock-in and beyond.

    19. Re:Trusted Computing by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trusted computing as a whole is a good thing, with one componant that is a very bad thing: Remote attestation.

      Nuclear bombs are on a whole good things, with one componant that is a very bad thing: widespread death.

      You can't admit that the single motivating factor of a system is bad, but then say that the afterthoughts and bonus utilities somehow make up for it. And if you don't believe remote attestation was the driving factor to create Trusted Computing, just look at its history of sponsors.

    20. Re:Trusted Computing by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you don't need protection, don't turn it on.

      And then don't bother connecting to the internet either, because no web-site operators will let you view their pages without Trusted Computing enabled.

      Otherwise, you might republish their copyrighted works without compensation... that's just too much of a risk. Or you could execute many other forms of abusive programs to disrupt the experiences of their other users.

      Really, untrusted PCs are just too dangerously unpredictable to allow out in public.

    21. Re:Trusted Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      (posting anonymously, cuz I work at verisign, though not in any of the cert-related depts...)

      Free clue -- VeriSign's raison d'etre is not to convince end users that Business X is "trustworthy", only to verify whether or not someone representing themselves as Business X is in fact Business X. We verify the connection(s) between a real-world/meatspace identity and an electronic identity.

      If We Install Spyware, Inc. applies for a SSL cert for www.weinstallspyware.com, our job is to verify that the guy requesting the cert is actually works for We Install Spyware, and that the domain name is also legitimately connected with the company. Ditto for code signing certs.

      If, after we have verified that yes, indeed, the spyware you are about to install is really from We Install Spyware, Inc, you still want to install it, then hey, that's on you. We verify the company's identity, that's all.

    22. Re:Trusted Computing by Alsee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who modded this up? It is wrong on almost every point.

      When you compile or install a software, you can sign it. The computer will not execute anything that is not signed.

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with Trusted Computing.

      If you want to do that you can do it right now with a trivial change to the EXE loader code. Hell, you can do it on a Win98 machine without a patch - all you need to do is redirect EXE and similar filetype association to point you your own little stub code to do that check. You can obviously do it with a trivial patch to Linux or DOS or any system.

      Trusted Computing has nothing to do with signing files. In Trusted Computing any code's hash *is* it's "signature" and controlls what data it may decrypt. It is that hash which is reported over the internet. No need for any signature from anyone. You can certainly add signatures for various purposes on top of the Trust system, but it really has nothing to do with Trusted Computing itself.

      The important thing here is that the user is in full control of the system.

      Sure - in the sense that if he does not "voluntarily" turn over total control to the Trust system and to other people then it is impossible to install and run the new Trusted software and impossible to read or use any Trusted files and it will be impossible to view any Trusted website, and potentially in about 5-8 years he may be denied any internet access. The Trusted Computing Group has announced a project for routers that would deny an internet connection to any computer that is not locked down in Trusted Compliant mode. In fact at the Washington DC Global Tech Summit the president's Cyber Cecurity Advisor called on ISPs to plan on making exactly this sort of system a mandatory part of their Terms of Service to get internet access. I can dig up a link to this speech if you don't beleive me.

      So short term refusal to submit to Trusted Computing and give up control of your computer just means you can't use a few new peices of software and you won't be able to buy the RIAA and MPAA's new DRM download sales. However the problem gets worse over a couple of years. Refusal to submit means you get locked out of more and more software and more and more files and more and more websites. Eventually you may be be effectively banned from the internet unless you 'voluntarily' activate the Trust chip.

      But yes, you are always 'free' to leave the Trust system off. You are 'free' to crawl into a hole in the ground and use nothing new and connect to no one. You are 'free' to to choose to get locked in a prison cell instead of giving up control of your computer.

      So you can have hardware accelerated encryption/decryption

      Lie.

      To be fair I assume *you* are not lying, merely that you are honestly echoing a lie that has been told to you.

      Trust chips cheap low horsepower silicon. Running crypo on them is SLOWER than on even the lowest of ordinary low end CPUs. In fact a single basic crypto operations may take a full second or more to run on these very low capability Trust chips.

      If you want crypto accelleration, great, get a standard hardware crypto accellerator. They've been around forever and they have absolutely nothing to do with Trusted Comptuing.

      Many people opose trusted computer because they confuse this with DRM

      You could get EVERY claimed benefit to the owner of Trusted Computing with identical hardware where the owner is given a printed copy of his master key. The fundamental design requirement of Trusted Computing is that they owner is forbidden to know his master key and the specification requires that the chip must self-destruct and destroy your data if you attempt to get at your master key.

      The *ONLY* purpose of forbidding the owner to know his own key is to enable DRM enforcment and DRM-type functionality, to restrict the owner. Being forbidden to know your own key has the sole effect of restricting what you c

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. Feature creep by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know I'm going to rub a few feathers the wrong way, but I think this kind of feature creep is actually good for the Linux kernel.

    The more features we can get into kernel mode, the less we need to rely on "chaining" and other Unix-way solutions and we can think more about applications and OS services as "whole units".

    And since the majority of installations of this latest version will be on desktops, the more hardware support, the better the hardware support, the more seamless the hardware support, the better.

    It would be nice to see some componentization of the kernel to allow for easy stripping of unnecessary features, but as the kernel will stand, the features are all necessary.

    1. Re:Feature creep by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You got one thing right - you *are* going to rub a lot of feathers the wrong way saying that. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the idea, but understand that having lots (and lots) of little tools that do one thing only, that can be chained together is the "Unix way".

      For a lot of people, that's a lot of the appeal of Unix and Unix-like systems.

    2. Re:Feature creep by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure what your post is saying.

      Hardware support has nothing to do with feature creep (directly anyway - indirectly they effect underlying device systems like usb,scsi,ide etc).

      Seemless hardware support (HAL etc) is a new feature, so point there.

      The inotify thing is a replacement for dnotify (I know you didn't mention it, but it was in the article) so doesn't add any features really, just fixes bugs.

      The whole thing about relying less on chaining... I just didn't get.
      Can you give any example where something that used to be considered to be a user space problem is now kernel space? It's always been known that we need kernel notifications for hardware etc.

      The 'chaining' thing will never go away - you'll always need kernel space talking to user space middle ware talking to user space apps.
      Nobody has ever thought otherwise, and unlikely anyone will ever think otherwise.

      The 'whole units' bit only makes sense if you're a manager.

    3. Re:Feature creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It would be nice to see some componentization of the kernel to allow for easy stripping of unnecessary features, but as the kernel will stand, the features are all necessary."

      Erm...you can do that now and have been able to for most (all?) of the last decade.

      At runtime, there are modules. At compile time, whole sections of code can be removed.

      The Linux kernel is only monolythic at the lowest levels; it's not a microkernel message passing system and that's not going to change. That's one of the reasons why it has been ported to so many processor architectures -- even the arch-specific parts only get added if you are compiling for that processor!

      What function(s) do you see specifically?

    4. Re:Feature creep by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linux is supposed to be fun. That's the most important part about it. Not "good for mission-critical applications", not "suitable for enterprise solutions", not "desktop-ready", not "lower in TCO than competition", not "faster", not "more free", not "less bloated", not "more robust", not "scalable", "stable", "secure", "efficient", "competitive", "easy". Just fun. This is the ultimate priority and all the rest results directly from it. Make it a corporate monster and you take all the fun away from it, so let's avoid it. Make it free, and you make it more fun, so let's make it free.

      Security is interesting, but gets boring on the long run.
      Stabilizing, bugfixes etc are a drudgery, but later using buggy code sucks.
      Cleaning up badly written code is difficult.
      Writing drivers really sucks.
      Features are fun.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  4. What this means by JohnFluxx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just for those not in the know..

    Inotify is a replacement for dnotify. With both you can watch for a file for changes. You can even watch a directory for changes. However with dnotify you couldn't recursively watch a directory for changes. To do so required basically 'opening' each folder and quickly you use up the maximum number of files you can open.

    With inotify it still doesn't directly support recursively watching a directory but example code for doing so is given and doesn't have the same problems. One distro uses this for watching /home recursively. I don't remember why or which. :)

    As for the notification thing - that's part of HAL, and means usb pens, cameras, etc should be 'auto detected' and the user can be notified and asked what to do automatically.

    1. Re:What this means by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh just to reply to myself.. dnotify had this problem where if you watched a file say on a CD, it meant that file was 'opened' and hence the CD couldn't be ejected because it was being used..

      inotify fixes this.

      (waiting 2 mins between posts... sigh)

    2. Re:What this means by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Inotify is a replacement for dnotify. With both you can watch for a file for changes. You can even watch a directory for changes.

      I've seen the older dnotify thing at work in KDE, and even that seemed to work much better than the equivalent in MacOS X on my iBook. I've frequently saved a file from Safari, gone to attach it in Mail only to find it's not present in the file selection dialogue box (that I've opened after saving the file). A quick click on the desktop makes things update, but it's bloody annoying.

      I've noticed that open source solutions to problems like this often iterate through various designs, starting from a quick hack, moving on to something with more features grafted on and then an occasional redesign or two before something much longer-lasting and full-featured comes into being. I suppose the lesser need for backwards-compatibility helps a lot - you can kill a crap design and rewrite any (open source) software which used it, instead of having to keep it until the end of time in the style of Windows...

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:What this means by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I tried plugging a laptop hard drive to a USB adapter and then into a Windows desktop so I could recover the drive (the laptop was dead). It recognized it as a USB mass storage device, but did not give it a drive letter. Took a look in the Disk Management control panel. It saw the drive, and its partitions, and acknowledged that there was no drive letter. I right clicked the partition and the option to assign it a drive letter was greyed out. So I tried the diskpart command line tool. It said that the drive was active, and it saw the NTFS windows partition, but that the drive was hidden and had no volumes. There was no command to mount the partition.

      I tried the drive on 3 computers, with XP home, XP professional, and 2000 professional. Same results on each, except that the 2000 computer spontaneously rebooted and afterwards could no longer mount any usb drives.

      So I plugged it into an ancient computer running Ubuntu Hoary. The drive was immediately detected and mounted. An icon was placed on the desktop. A nautilus window was popped up to browse the drive's contents. I was able to backup the entire drive to a server without error and without the use of a command line. I just dragged & dropped.

      I haven't encountered your problem yet. You could try Ubuntu Hoary to see if that fixes it. To upgrade from the command line:
      sudo gedit (or whatever text editor you prefer) /etc/apt/sources.list
      replace each "warty" with "hoary" and save
      sudo apt-get update
      sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

    4. Re:What this means by tialaramex · · Score: 3, Informative

      hotplug isn't enough

      The hotplug system is part of the OS, running as root, and is intended to do things like insert driver modules, pump firmware around, and set permissions. This is useful even on a server, although its more important for a laptop or desktop machine. It doesn't do anything to your desktop directly though...

      HAL uses DBUS to notify the user's desktop software about these exciting events so that it can do something appropriate. The desktop doesn't have dangerous privileges (so it's unlikely to accidentally format your main SCSI drive instead of the freshly inserted USB flash) and is able to interfact with the user through pop-ups and making icons appear in file managers etc.

      This system (Hotplug + HAL + DBUS) replaces earlier systems where desktop software polled for any interesting changes every few seconds. The new system is event driven, using resources only when they're needed, and should hopefully be more powerful too.

    5. Re:What this means by intangible · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Windows will only assign a USB drive the next drive letter after the last physical device. For example: if your cd-rom is D: then the USB drive will try to mount at E:, however, if you have E: mapped to a network drive, the USB drive will not be mounted.

    6. Re:What this means by spitzak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fact that you *have* to "unmount" is the bug, you know.

      I know, they may have trashed their data because they did not unmount. However it is silly to "punish" them by making it impossible to stick the disk back in to see if it is trashed.

      Here is what I consider the ideal solution, far better than Windows or OS/X. Lets see if somebody can actually do this right:

      When the drive is pulled, the system checks to see if all I/O had been flushed to it. If so it unmouts. The desktop environment responds instantly by removing any display of that drive or it's contents in file browsers.

      If I/O has not been flushed the disk indicator remains in the desktop display, with a big red mark indicating that it had been pulled. Usually sticking it back in and pulling it after a second will flush the rest of the data and unmount it correctly. The user can also ignore it and stick new USB drives in (getting new icons) or do something on the menu to make it forget about the drive.

      Attempting to shut down or log off with any red marked disks will ask the user to stick them back in so the data can be flushed. The user can hit cancel if they don't want to.

      This flushing of a reinserted device must check carefully that it is the same device and it has not been written to by another machine while it was pulled.

    7. Re:What this means by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but once that quick hack is deployed, even to beta testers who then build on it (if the testers are large enough), Microsoft supports them in perpetuity.

      Example: COM, DCOM, ActiveX, now the various .NET protocols, and remember "COM" covers several iterations itself and has several variants. Windows supports them all.

      I am increasingly convinced of two things: One, this is why Windows is so bloated; once a feature gets in, it never gets out. I suspect this is the sole reason; if anything, Microsoft programmers are above average so most other explanations don't fly. Two, this is why open source-style development, realizing you can't have backwards compatibility forever and ever and depending on source code and its recompilation, will eventually win; reverse compatibility becomes too expensive. (This is not to say OSS will win, though OSS gets a big foot in the door when source is distributed, but that the style is inevitable. Shipping binary code to run directly on the processor is just too low-level to be shipping programs around in 2005. The JVM has this right, as do a number of open source projects, shipping the code to a virtual machine around.)

      This also explains my assertion that Microsoft programmers are above average with the observed code quality coming out of Redmond; they get increasing amounts of the "above-averaged-ness" frittered away in backwards compatibility support. If Microsoft could truly just start 100% fresh, which they can't (destroy-the-business kind of can't), they'd probably produce a fearsome OS. We'll never know.

      (The eye candy of Longhorn may take all the processor they've spec'ed out, but, most likely, the reason it needs so much memory is all the garbage hanging around, being backwards compatible. The OSS equivalent of Longhorn eyecandy will fit in much less memory, even if it needs the same or more processor, as a result, and the memory advantage is only going to grow on the OSS side, because by and large, it doesn't implement every half-assed idea from 1988 on in itself. It tries to constrain the half-assed ideas to the last year or so, and goodness knows there are plenty to go around.)

    8. Re:What this means by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Normally, you can use the "sync" mount option to enable synchronous writes. Unfortunately, this is currently broken in the Linux vfat driver.

  5. inotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    'iNotify' Apple about this release and let's see what they have to say about 'iT'.

  6. What about a better solution for device drivers by UnderAttack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think these changes are nice. But what Linux needs is a rethinking of the way device drivers are integrated. Bundling them all with the kernel will just no longer work (did you ever try to configure a kernel these days?). What I am looking for is a way to be able to use the same driver (aka 'module') in different kernels without having to recompile all over again, and the ability to compile a driver without having the complete kernel source installed.

    --
    ---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
    1. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'did you ever try to configure a kernel these days?' - no, my distro does it for me.

      I don't see what the problem is. My distro has all the drivers compiled for me. What use case do you have other than compiling your own kernel for the sake of it?

      On a practical level, Linus has said many times that he won't do this because it would require freezing the internal kernel api. While this might sound good for an outsider, you only have to consider how much say the USB structure has been reorganised to realise how bad an idea it would have been if this was all frozen.

    2. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


      I've been a avid user of Linux for a long time.

      The days of compiling a custom kernel is over, except for people who like playing with the latest features or gentoo users.

      Not because it's impractical, just because there is no point.

      If you have a high-quality distro (Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora etc) then the distro people are quicker to apply kernel patches to fix security issues, test them for bugs, and release updated kernels then what you can normally get thru kernel.org.

      The performance advantage of running a custom kernel to cut down on excess drivers is pretty much null and void if you have more then 16 megs of RAM.

      Stability with distro versions of kernels are generally very good because they are tested in your operating enviroment before they are given to you.

      So unless you run into oddball issues (such as the very latest hardware) or requirements recompiling a kernel is a non-issue, even with very experianced and demanding linux users.

    3. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by pkphilip · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it will be useful to have a system whereby drivers can be loaded without requiring the entire kernel to be compiled.

      Granted most distributions do ship with as many of the drivers as possible, but I have found myself in a spot a few times when the Linux kernel did not have the drivers for something fairly critical which was needed during installation - for instance, I am trying to install linux onto my AMD64 machine but none of the linux kernels (including 2.6.11) support the southbridge chipset on my motherboard.. and so Linux cannot detect the harddisk on my computer...which means I cannot install Linux on the machine now.

      I installed XP on the same machine without a problem - just popped in the device driver CD and the harddisk was immediately recognized.

      It will be great to have that facility on Linux as well - changed your graphics card? just pop in the driver CD and install the driver and you are ready to go..

    4. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by fearofcarpet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure what the beef here is... I happen to run Gentoo and love having the ability to easily add/remove/modularize (is that even a word?) drivers from the kernel... And it is rock stable even on an amd64... I can streamline the kernel (becuse it makes me feel better) and ditch things I don't want (like hiding certain hardware or compiling 3rd party drivers in their place). Just giving the kernel what I know it needs does cut down on boot times because of hardware auto-detection, but of course you can just edit init scripts to get the same effect... I'm pretty sure you don't need the entire ~100 MB source to compile drivers either. Fedora stopped including the kernel-source RPMs a while ago and I have had no trouble compiling custom drivers.

      Isn't this the great thing about Linux though? I can re-compile the kernel to my heart's content under Gentoo and pretend it makes my computer faster. If I want to slap Linux on a computer and just have everything work, I can go Fedora, SuSE, whatever, and have everything built in and well tested. My choices with Mac OS or Windows basically boil down to "should I go with the latest version, or stick with what I have?". But hey, whatever changes are coming down the pipe for device drivers is fine by me as long as it doesn't rob me of any choices or flexibility.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    5. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by cortana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Linus has explained why a HAL is a stupid idea several times.

      The way Linux driver development works is: release your driver under the GPL. Show that you are capable of maintaining it. Once it works well enough, get it merged into the Kernel. Continue to maintain it.

      If you don't like it, fork it, and leave the developers with a development model that actually works.

      If Linux had a HAL, we would have the Windows situation: hundreds of drivers that were written, worked for a while, and then were dumped as soon as the company that produced them decided they could make more money by forcing us to upgrade to their next product.

      I would like to leave such cargo-culting of drivers for Windows chumps. This way we get fewer drivers, but the ones that are written are of much higher quality--and are actually maintained, too.

    6. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was younger I loved downloading the next kernel, going through every single option, reading the help, and deciding if I want it.

      Great fun :) Led to me contributing a tiny bit to the kernel (I have a 3 line patch in there still! :) )

      I don't these days.. perhaps I should. Great for learning even if I don't produce a working kernel heh.
      It would be fun to play with SElinux and everything. I'm such a geek.. ;)

    7. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by cortana · · Score: 2, Informative

      Frankly, it's your responsibility to do some research before you buy hardware. :)

      I was bitten by Wifi too, I saw that prism54 was in the kernel so I bought an SMC 2802W. Unfortunatly, it turns out that the 2802W was silently replaced everywhere with the 2802Wv2 (same model number, FCC ID, no way to tell the cards apart).

      Of course, the 2802Wv2 is of course totally different on the inside, and was produced after Conexant; they seem to have used the same shitty design as they did for their Winmodems; apparantly the 2802Wv2 offloads all the work to the host CPU, which means the driver has to be a lot more complicated. And asking Conexant for hardware specs is about as likely to work as is building a space elevator out of cheese.

      To get back on topic: if you want a low quality driver you can probably use ndiswrapper + whatever hunk of shit your card's manufacturer supplied you with for use in Windows.

    8. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft hasn't provided a stable API. Many Drivers from NT4.0, 2000, XP and 2003 don't work accress all NT based platforms. There answer has been to support all NT based platforms with diff. drivers for Each OS. What happens when longhorn comes out. Either the manf. has keep up with the changes of Longhorn and released updated driver for that version or doesn't support it and you can't use that device on Longhorn. I have been bitten with hardware no longer supported in new Microsoft OS more times than I care to admit. Under Linux I have a Raid Controller by a manf. that went out of bussines 10 Years ago that still works under linux today. In linux it seems once supported allwas supported.

    9. Re:What about a better solution for device drivers by runderwo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, here's an idea. Since compiling a Linux driver requires no C library, you could ship the compiler GCC and binutils on the driver CD itself. You would only need the headers for the kernel you are running installed, which are provided by the distribution already, separate from the full kernel source.

      A script copies the compiler, driver sources, and kernel headers to a chroot; compiles the driver; exits the chroot; copies the driver to the appropriate location; and loads it. Another script removes the driver if the user changes his mind.

      No stable binary interface is necessary in this way, and no development tools on the user's system so no worries about GCC standards tightening breaking the compile - only worry is source compatibility, so the tested kernels can be stamped on the CD. (e.g., Compatible with Linux up to version 2.6.10)

  7. Boring missing features... by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Can Linux, please, implement the kqueue (PDF) interface, please?

    Also, how about growing files with mmap? Currently one can not mmap() beyond the end of the file on Linux...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Boring missing features... by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For file descriptor events, Linux has a better implementation than kqueue, called epoll. It's better because it works with all types of file descriptor (thanks to using the same kernel functions as poll/select internally), not just the subset documented in the kqueue man page. Which means you can use epoll in a generic replacement for select/poll, which you can't quite do with kqueue.

      kqueue can do other things, including aio which is useful, and it is marginally more efficient due to fewer system calls for registration, but the documented file descriptor limitations are a weak point so it should not be copied exactly the same into Linux. It is possible to add the other things that are useful from kqueue to epoll, but nobody has done so. Perhaps there isn't much demand for it.

      mmap: you can grow files while using mmap on them. That's what ftruncate and mremap are for. Oh, did you want to grow files automatically to the nearest rounded-up page when you write to a page beyond the current size? That's not as useful as it sounds, because typically you must still check against a bound, otherwise you'll write beyond the end of the mapping's virtual address. Given that you must have that check, you can easily check against a smaller bound instead and call ftruncate when you're about to exceed it, plus mremap to arbitrarily extend the mapping, which is better than limiting yourself to a fixed maximum size with mmap in advance.

      And if you don't want to allocate disk blocks: ftruncate creates a sparse file, the disk blocks are allocated on demand when you write to individual mapped memory pages.

      Enjoy,
      -- Jamie

    2. Re:Boring missing features... by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      kqueue is in FreeBSD since 4.1 or, at least, April 2000. epoll was first introduced into Linux-2.5.x (when exactly?)

      The initial version started in December 2001. epoll in its present form was added to the base kernel in 2.5.45, October 2002.

      and is still not present in production kernels

      Wrong. It's in every 2.6-based distro, which is most of them right now, and for the "commercial enterprise class" users that includes Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.

      Linux' failure to implement a known, well documented and exemplified, freely available API, which predates Linux' own solution by several years, is the gist of my complaint.

      I know the gist of your complaint, but kqueue really was considered during the design of the current epoll, and was rejected. Looking at the kqueue documentation now, I think Linus was right to reject it.

      The ideas underlying kqueue are good, but the implemented API has flaws. Take a look at the documentation, and ask: Can you wait for reading/writing on a terminal file descriptor? What about an audio device? A serial port? The answer is not according to the documentation, yet it ought to be possible to wait on an any file descriptor with the same meaning as select/poll.

      The initial versions of /dev/epoll had the same flaws and others. But that was rejected too, and it had to be changed to the epoll you see today before it was accepted.

      epoll isn't perfect. In fact I argued for a more general event-waiting API at the time, but Linus likes simplicity, and that's what we have now. It is nice and simple to use. It's major ommision is that it doesn't play well with AIO, and that will have to be solved eventually.

      Your mistake is trying to map a write-only file. It's not permitted because the CPU is not capable of write-only pages, so all write-only mappings are really read-write mappings. If BSD is letting you map a write-only file on the same kind of CPU, that's a security hole in BSD.

      Nice theory, but wrong. Try exploiting it. Unless you open with O_RDWR (or O_RDONLY), you can not mmap with PROT_READ (EPERM). And if you don't mmap with PROT_READ, you can not, well, read (SIGBUS).

      It's you who are wrong on this. Ok, let's try exploiting it.

      I've mapped a write-only file with PROT_WRITE only (not PROT_READ), opened with O_WRONLY. The file is write-only: it has permission 0200 (--w-------), and it can't be opened for reading or read-write: verified by "cat test_mmap_file" correctly saying "Permission Denied" and other ways it cannot be read.

      Then I read from the mapping and printed what was read, to prove it was really reading the file's contents. I tried both a local file in /tmp, and also a file over NFS. Results:

      FreeBSD 5.3/i386: I can read from the write-only file using mmap.
      NetBSD 2.0/i386: I can read from the write-only file using mmap.
      FreeBSD 5.3/Alpha: I can read from the write-only file using mmap.

      Well, well, the exploit works. You should really test a feature before arguing about it. :)

      Tsk, a security hole in the current production versions of FreeBSD and NetBSD no less. :) [It's unlikely to have major consequences, though, as write-only files are rarely used and never for anything critical.]

      The results for i386 are no surprise, as the CPU itself is incapable of write-only mappings. (It's a bug that BSD let's you map a write-only file at all, but given that it does then it's not surprising you can r

  8. Amount of changes by spineboy · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm surprised at such a fine granular change in the kernel (2.6.11 -> 2.6.12) with all of these changes - some sound pretty big. This really sounds more like a larger version bump, e.g. 2.8. I guess it's debateable since it's such a grey area in terms of what constitutes a version change.

    But all in all, these new improvements sound great.
    -address space randomization for defence against buffer overflow attacks and remote script kiddies.
    Reiser 4, Xen suport, software suspend, trusted computing support,latency improvements and improved kernel space notification. - WOW - lot's o' stuff.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Amount of changes by agrippa_cash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been using Reiser4 on a spare partition for a while now, and my only suspected issue (inexplicible HDD activity) may not have been related. When I compiled it in, Hans Reiser stated that there were 0 open bugs. My understanding is that Reiser4 is so bizarrely un-posix that Linus isn't comfortable with it. The HR/LT discussion regarding R4s inclusion was posted here a while back.

  9. This ain't M$'s "trusted computing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    M$'s trusted computing is aimed at MPAA/RIAA: "You can trust M$ to not allow users access to your data even though its on their computer"

    Linux trused computing is aimed at users/admins: "You can trust that User A can't muck with User B, expecially if User B is root!"

  10. "Unfortunately no release date" by Salk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems like a good thing to me. One of the advantages of Linux not been driven by a need to produce revenue.

  11. Re:Those are pretty big changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. There is no 2.7 tree, so no backporting.
    2. Why do you assume, that the interest is sudden? Maybe the technology is simply deemed ready (as in tested and reliable enough) now to go into the main kernel?

  12. We need a "break the kernel" team by cluge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The current linux kernel is pretty amazing if you think about it. It's running on everything from OS 390's right down to cell phones with features for everything inbetween. This flexability generally means that the kernel has a lot of untested combinations. Thats a potential problem.

    The kernel needs a team of people that specifically tries to break the kernel. Right now kernel testing is haphazard at best. By devoting a team of people (just like the developers) whose sole purpose in life is to break the kernel we (the community) will improve the security, and quality of future linux kernels. It will also improve the quality of code going into the kernel.

    The new code sounds very good - but the linux development community needs some hackers to break stuff.

    Cluge

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:We need a "break the kernel" team by youknowmewell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just let my mom use a linux box for a while, she'll break it.

      Sorry mom! *ducks* No I mean it, I'm sor*smack*

  13. Some time soon... by Progman3K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's keep it that way!
    As long as the developers release it when it's done, and not according to some abstract schedule, we'll have the best operating system there is.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  14. Re:Linux x by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Funny

    GUN Linux

    Eric, is that you?

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  15. Kernel advances by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Kernel advances such as position independent executables, non-executable memory regions, stack smashing protection and execution capabilities are introduced. Implementations such as PAX and exec-shield are compared." Now if they can just get those last few kernels to execute properly, we will have created flawless popcorn!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  16. Drivers, drivers, drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just reading the latest Kernel Traffic and it hit me how much of a flux the driver model seems to be in. Constantly.

    Microsoft Windows seems to have had a stable driver interface since at least Win2K (probably NT4 too). The weird thing is that eschewing binary compatibility, like Linus likes to do, really ought to make it easier to stabilize a model? I mean, they have all the upsides with none of the downsides.

    I really don't care personally -- I don't write drivers -- but isn't it a bit odd that the system is constantly rewritten (or at least majorly tweaked)? New month -- New driver model. New locking mechanism. New everything. What's not new is broken hardware sleep/resume!

    Drivers aren't sexy, and it seems a lot of time is spent just spinning in place (no phun intended)

  17. Essential links.... by ssj_195 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ... for people wishing to know more about the possible ramifications of Trusted ("Treacherous"...?) Computing:

    Ross Anderson's Critique

    IBM's Rebuttal

    Trusted Gentoo

    IBM's rebuttal does a decent job of allaying some of the fears - for example, it states that it will not prevent you from running any OS & programs you wish to on your own computer (which, for the record, I believe - witness the Trusted Gentoo project and e.g. this this link). They state that their approach to Trusted Computing is not particularly well-suited to DRM, and on the face of it, I agree - there seems to be little attempt at restricting the user of a computer with the TPM from doing what they want. However, in my opinion, as a base for an utterly crippling DRM regime, distributors simply could not ask for a better setup, as I'll argue a little later.

    So to re-cap, it seems that if you are running Trusted hardware, there are no restrictions on what you can do on your computer in isolation; you can install Linux, run any number of Open Source apps, etc. But the keyword here is in isolation, and it is here that the dangers of Trusted Computing are revealed. For you see, Trusted Computing enables the usage of remote attestation wherein a server may request a hash of all software currently running on your computer. This hash is, for all intents and purposes, unforgeable, and if you disable your TPM (as IBM stress that you can, and again for the record, I see no reason to disbelieve them), no hash will be sent. The server may then assess this hash of software (or note that no hash has been provided, in which case it may well treat your computer as Untrusted) and decide, based on what software you are running, to simply not serve you with whatever material you requested - for example, it may decide that it will not deliver MP3's to your computer unless it knows for a fact that the receiving application is one that is known to encrypt the content as soon as it is received (so that e.g. it simply cannot be viewed while not running in Trusted mode) and which will take every step to ensure that once received, the unencrypted content never leaves your machine (e.g. by being written to CD, e-mailed , etc.). As you can imagine, the above scenario is not at all far-fetched as the **AA/ other media distributors are positively *creaming* themselves at the thought of stamping out casual file-sharing or even making backups for your own use in some of your other devices.

    So we are left with the situation where someone who does not use Trusted hardware (and is thus unable to respond to attestation requests) or those who do run Trusted hardware but whose software fingerprint is not deemed acceptable by the server will simply not be granted access to certain material, rendering such people at a big disadvantage. And it's no good buying hardware free from Trust chips from China or such places on the "black market"; this offers no advantage at all as Trusted hardware, as mentioned, does not stop you using your computer the way you want in isolation; the problem only occurs when you try to interact with other computers.

    So far, this sounds unpleasant but not too bad (although I would urge you to read Anderson's linked essay for some more imaginative and serious abuses), but if we allow ourselves to follow the slippery-slope, we end up at the state where ISPs will not allow your computer to access the internet at all (for surfing, e-mailing, anything) unless you are running Trusted hardware and software. Obviously, the social, political and legal barriers to this occurence are non-trivial, but we've all seen ridiculous Acts qu

    1. Re:Essential links.... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm buggered if I can find an answer to this, but if anyone is using Konqueror 3.4 with famd,

      No, I doubt anybody is using famd. At least, someone who uses removable media (like cdroms) can't very well run it, because it will keep directories open and prevent umounting.

      Maybe once linux 2.6.12 brings out the new inotify things, famd will become tolerable to run continually, and it'll start getting bugfixes in.

      PS. I am only 30% joking.

    2. Re:Essential links.... by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The offered advantages are, in my opinion, fairly weak - you can eliminate online cheating in multi-player games, and media companies are more likely to allow downloads of materials (DRM'd up the wazoo, of course).

      The real advantages appear primarily in corporate environments. Using hashes plus remote attestation to report precisely what version of what OS you're running, in an unforgeable way, is theoretically possible, but, IMO, impractical. It also requires a "secure" BIOS that cannot be flashed with arbitrary code, but only with code that is signed by the board manufacturer. That's a bigger concern, IMO, because it is a technology that has no benefits to the owner of the machine.

      For a corporate environment, however, the usage would be to ensure that the software hasn't *changed*. After IT images a machine, the hash would be stored and then the machine could be queried for a remote attestation that the current hash matches the original value. If not, the machine may not be allowed on the network, etc.

      An even more important usage is strong file/disk encryption, e-mail signing and VPN access. The TPM can store keys that are "bound" to a particular system configuration. If you boot the machine with different software or (if you configure it this way) with a different BIOS configuration, then the keys will no longer be accessible. So, for example, you could configure a laptop that carries sensitive information to encrypt the disk with a key that is bound to a well-secured system config. If the laptop is lost or stolen, the attacker won't be able to get the data through the normal OS (because it's well-secured and he doesn't have authentication credentials to get in) and if he boots the machine off of a live CD or some such, the decryption keys will not be available.

      Similarly, a key used to authenticate to a VPN can be bound in the TPM. That way, IT doesn't have to worry about infected/hacked machines coming in through the firewall.

      There are other examples.

      This is useful technology, and it may even be useful to home users. It's certainly useful to people who have a need to care about real security.

      Unfortunately, it may also enable strong DRM. That's just one application of the technology. It's an application we need to fight, of course, but the oft-heard refrain here on slashdot "Attack the use, not the tool" is applicable, IMO.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Essential links.... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read what you just said ?

      Next time you find out by email your boss is about to fire you because you're e.g. colored, you will not be able to forward that mail to the authorities, and your boss will be able to destroy ALL traces of that email from his home.

      Next time the police really needs data on a person's computer it will not be possible to extract it, because "TPM" will prevent it.

      And ... next time microsoft needs all the internal documents from your company, they will just open their explorer, that just happens to be implicitly trusted by your company's software, and it can do 2 things : they can both read the documents, and they can make the documents AND any backup copies you may have inaccessible.

      Adobe will be able to do this for pdfs, your bank for your bank statements, ...

      THAT is what TPM is about.

  18. Heh. by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Funny

    so hardware 'just works'

    Begun, the Just Works wars have ...

  19. Latency and preempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently, accourding to some posts on the Linux Audio User list the latency in native 2.6.12 is as good as the patched 2.4 for audio use.
    This is great news for all of us using Linux for audio. It's also a pretty mean feat, as the 2.4 low latency patches were a little bit brute force compared to the 'correct' method in 2.6 of fixing all the problem spin lock areas in the kernel, a much harder task.
    Now all we need is to get the RT LSM module into the main kernel. (It allows non root uses real time scheduling without messing about, it's not vital for perfomance but nice for usability.)

    I have not tried 2.6.12 myself yet, but have got great results with unpatched 2.6.11 kernels.

  20. What a waste of effort... by hanssprudel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I realize that it is probably paid for by IBM as part of their campaign to try to dupe people into thinking that the DRM vehicle they call "trusted computing" (remember: that is "trusted" as in "other people can trust your computer to control you") is something benign. However, implementing "TC" in Linux feels like a gigantic waste of time: does anybody here REALLY think that the proprietary DRM applications that are the ONLY REASON WHY WE WOULD NEED "TC" are ever going to be ported to Linux?

    Do you see the DRMed "music stores" (it is more like a barter: "give us your money and control over your computer, and we'll let some Britney and Fiddy come from your speakers!") falling over themselves to run on Linux? Do you think that is because Linux doesn't support "TC" or because those companies couldn't possibly care less about Linux as a platform? I'll give you three guesses. And the ENTIRE POINT with "TC" is to make it impossible for us to reverse engineer and write our own replacements for those applications - so be definition we can forget about that alternative.

    All I can say is, I hope they had fun implementing it, and that they feel happy about the all the people who believe the astroturfing that "TC" isn't the Torjan Horse of DRM.

    "TC" is DRM is the tool of closed networks, closed source, a closed society, and a closed future. People who believe it will coexist with Linux are so naive that it would be quaint if it wasn't so fucking scary...

    1. Re:What a waste of effort... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is interesting is that "Trusted" used to be a label applied to systems like Trusted Solaris that implemented mandatory access controls (similar to what SELinux does for Linux). Which version of Trusted computing are they talking about? Mandatory access controls or the DRM nonsense?

    2. Re:What a waste of effort... by Slashcrap · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your post is as incoherent and paranoid as it is long.

      The problem with what you understand as Trusted Computing is that someone else gets the keys. They can decide what your computer can run and what it can't. Obviously this is bad and justifies the acute paranoia from which you seem to be suffering.

      With the Linux implementation, you get the keys. So you can sign all of the executables you normally use and tell the kernel to only run them. Anything unsigned (e.g trojans, rootkits etc..) won't run.

      It's a useful security feature. It's not about the RIAA preventing you from running that Britney Spears mp3 that you downloaded from Kazaa.

    3. Re:What a waste of effort... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TCPA is not DRM, like several TCPA opponents say. Also, TCPA is not completelly independent of DRM either (like some TCPA defendors - read IBM - say), one of its goals is to improve DRM.

      That beeing said, I disagree of your reasoning. TCPA have the downside of making it possible to enforce DRM, but have several upsides too (if it didn't have upsides, nobody would fear it). The best way of fighting its downsides is offering clear implementations of the upsides, so, nobody will need to use the evil implementations.

  21. Re:Solutions in search of a problem by mi · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you're having problems scaling poll/select, you probably need more hardware.
    kqueue lets me know, when the file grows. For example, tail(1) on FreeBSD uses it (with -f and -F switches). How would you do that with select/poll?
    What the fuck for?
    Is this language normal for Linux-related discourse?
    And extending a file via mmap() is effectively impossible. If you don't think so, you don't understand what mmap() really does.
    Funny, it works on FreeBSD -- once you ftruncate the file beyond its end, you can mmap it and have the storage allocated automatically, when (and if) you write to it...

    Don't post anonymously if you want a reply.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  22. Re:Just use Solaris by omega9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How are any of these feature `revolutionary' or any sort of significant milestone? Maybe it is in the Linux world..
    SELinux, please. Solaris has had..
    Reiser 4!? C'mon! Solaris 10 will have..
    Xen you say? Eh, not to burst your bubbles but Solaris 10 now features...

    Isn't that the exact point? This is noteworthy because these are features of LINUX, which LINUX didn't have before. By your arguements there would be no reason to ever start a new OS project. "Oh shit, we're adding harddisk support. That's been done, so... we can stop here."

    I'm glad you're a fan of Solaris. So am I to an extent. But if we could get the same capabilities under the development and openness model of Linux, then how cool would that be? Sun likes to try and talk a big game, but they're never going to open up Solaris as much as Linux is.

    --
    I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
  23. I've had no problems at all. by anti-NAT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm running a circa-1999 machine, and have been running 2.6 since 2.6.0, and am currently running 2.6.11. I use it everyday, so it isn't just sitting idle. Here is my current uptime :

    23:13:10 up 29 days, 5:21, 5 users, load average: 0.26, 0.29, 0.25

    At the risk of starting a religious war, are you running any binary modules ? They can cause some stability problems.

    I avoid binary modules, or rather, make sure that the hardware I buy is supported by official kernel device drivers. Back in 1993, when I first started to use Linux, you didn't have a choice - it was open source device drivers or the hardware just wouldn't work.

    Here are some brief specs on my machine.

    >cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor : 0
    vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    cpu family : 6
    model : 7
    model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
    stepping : 3
    cpu MHz : 448.172
    cache size : 512 KB
    fdiv_bug : no
    hlt_bug : no
    f00f_bug : no
    coma_bug : no
    fpu : yes
    fpu_exception : yes
    cpuid level : 2
    wp : yes
    flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    bogomips : 886.78

    >free
    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 385796 380076 5720 0 25692 93820
    -/+ buffers/cache: 260564 125232
    Swap: 1999736 224860 1774876

    >lspci
    0000:00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corp. 440BX/ZX/DX - 82443BX/ZX/DX Host bridge (rev 03)
    0000:00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 440BX/ZX/DX - 82443BX/ZX/DX AGP bridge (rev 03)
    0000:00:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Standard Microsystems Corp [SMC] 83c170 EPIC/100 Fast Ethernet Adapter (rev 06)
    0000:00:0e.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. (formerly CMD Technology Inc) PCI0680 Ultra ATA-133 Host Controller (rev 02)
    0000:00:0f.0 Ethernet controller: National Semiconductor Corporation DP83815 (MacPhyter) Ethernet Controller
    0000:00:10.0 Multimedia video controller: Brooktree Corporation Bt878 Video Capture (rev 02)
    0000:00:10.1 Multimedia controller: Brooktree Corporation Bt878 Audio Capture (rev 02)
    0000:00:14.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corp. 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ISA (rev 02)
    0000:00:14.1 IDE interface: Intel Corp. 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 IDE (rev 01)
    0000:00:14.2 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 USB (rev 01)
    0000:00:14.3 Bridge: Intel Corp. 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ACPI (rev 02)
    0000:01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 SE] (rev 01)
    0000:01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 SE] (Secondary) (rev 01)

    OpenGL isn't fully working on my Radeon 9200 yet, following the dri-development mailing list, there seems to be some bugs that are causing it to lock up. I've had glxgears run for about 4 minutes, then X locks up. If I desperately need it, I'll put my Matrox G550 back in.

    In my experience, 2.6 has been as stable as 2.4.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
  24. Re:Those are pretty big changes by Zemplar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Are they backporting from the 2.7 tree? I know that SE linux has been around for a while, but why the sudden interest by the kernel maintainers?"

    Perhaps to further strengthen Linux as a viable alternative to Solaris 10, which now includes most of what used to be "Trused Solaris", their uber-secure version. Linux is great, but I still think anyone here would agree that Solars, for the moment, is still more secure than Linux at present.

  25. I Wish firewire would just work by t35t0r · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every day I see a new bug on the ieee1394 mailing list. There are some serious issues with firewire on linux. It is nowhere as mature as it is on winxp or macosx. DMESG spits out lots of errors, sometimes my drives unmount themselves when I transfer 50gb+ (ext3/reiser were massacres, xfs was slightly better). Even with the latest kernel these problems persist.

    1. Re:I Wish firewire would just work by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are some serious issues with firewire on linux. It is nowhere as mature as it is on winxp or macosx.

      No doubt I'm opening myself up to a Troll/Flamebait mod, but...

      FreeBSD's Firewire support is much better than Linux's. FreeBSD had firewire support before Linux, and it was considered stable and released in the default kernel before Linux even had it's unstable Firewire drivers available as an option, IIRC.

      Having good firewire support leads to other interesting developments too, like the ability to debug a crashed system over firewire.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  26. Go to the source by Corbet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should you be curious, I've posted the slides to my talk on LWN.net.

    --
    Jonathan Corbet, LWN.net
  27. Re:Those are pretty big changes by odaiwai · · Score: 2, Funny

    The 2.7 tree? You know, normally time-travellers are not supposed to give too much away.

  28. Gamers: Configurable USB Mouse Polling Rate! by Jagasian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One feature that isn't talked about much, but is very popular amongst gamers is the configurable USB mouse polling rate. For years it has been available as a kernel patch, but now it has finally been included in the kernel. This means no more recompiling your kernel just to increase your mouse polling rate from 125hz to 500hz. It can now be set from your boot loader or from the command prompt.

    Why is this so great? Well, the typical polling rate of 125hz for USB mice is noticably less smooth than a polling rate of 500hz, whether you are using your mouse in games or a desktop app. For this reason many people preferred to use PS2 mice, as they could be polled at up to 200hz. Now with this new feature, PS2 can be retired. Get yourself a high resolution USB optical mouse and set the polling rate to 500hz.

    You can feel the difference.

  29. Re:Gamers: Configurable USB Mouse Polling Rate! by alyandon · · Score: 3, Informative

    In most FPS games you typically respond with very small, quick mouse movements. The faster you poll the mouse the more accurate the mouse motion can be tracked which means less undershooting/overshooting your target intended target.

    Is it a night and day difference? No.

  30. 286 ? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I saw this story on the front page, it had 286 comments. Very appropriate, since the purpose of "Trusted Computing" is to turn the clock back to the bad old days.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  31. The Point of Trusted Computing on Linux by MooseGuy529 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many people are complaining about what Trusted Computing can/will be used for. Quit whining, for two reasons:

    First, Linux is open-source, so you can modify or disable whatever you want. Unlike a binary kernel, you can remove code you don't like, and the rest of the kernel will work without it (if you remove it cleanly). In other words, it's not being forced upon you by the OS distributors. If a company decides to make software that requires it, that will be their decision to make and their problem to solve.

    Second, TC has uses other than the oft-cited "make sure the computer only has $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE software here", for Orwellian values of $OMINOUS_ADJECTIVE such as "permitted", "approved", and so on. In fact, Trusted Gentoo is setting up a system that uses the TPM (Trusted Platform Module--"the chip") to make sure your kernel and bootloader hasn't been tampered with and keep your SSH keys from being compromised. "Trusted" simply means that there is an uncompromisable encryption and verification (signing) system in the computer. It can be used for good or evil. Linux gives you that choice.

    --

    Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist

  32. Re:Gamers: Configurable USB Mouse Polling Rate! by Jagasian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First off, a CRT's refresh rate can be above 100hz, but even so, the CRT's refresh rate is not synchronized with the mouse polling rate. So the cursor drawn to the screen is done so using the last mouse polling data. With 125hz, this means the data could be 8 miliseconds old, while with 500hz, the data is a maximum of 2 miliseconds old. Hence there is less lag in physical mouse movement and its logical and visual effect.

    It is actually more complicated than that, but those lag values are for lag due to mouse rate alone. Of course the CRT refresh rate introduces its own lag. But in short, keeping monitor refresh rate constant, because the monitor is not synchronized with the mouse, increasing the polling rate of the mouse makes for an improvement. Conversly the same can be said for increasing the refresh rate of the monitor.

    You don't have to take my word for it. If you are already using a good USB mouse at 125hz, try it at 500hz. You will notice the difference. Once you use 500hz for several days, try switching back to 125hz. You will hate it. The difference is even more noticable with higher resolution mice, such as 800 dpi and 1600 dpi optical mice because the movement delta can be quite large and a delay of 8 miliseconds of a large delta "feels" awkward.

    Of course, if you use a very crappy low resolution USB mouse, the difference is harder to notice.