On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:25:56PM +1000, Daurnimator wrote:
On 21 August 2015 at 19:57, Dominick Grift dac.overr...@gmail.com wrote:
i think it kind of sucks that systemctl --user list-units can be used to
determine who is currently logged in.
You can see with `loginctl list-users` too
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Dominick Grift dac.overr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0300, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
snip
i think it kind of sucks that systemctl --user list-units can be used
to
determine who is currently logged in. ( it shows active mount
On 21.08.2015 12:04, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Should not the solution for this be tied to the user and group field
mentioned in the unit so for example the postgresql type service unit
contains...
User=postgres
Group=postgres
Which would mean that the posgres user could
On Fri, 21.08.15 13:29, Christian Seiler (christ...@iwakd.de) wrote:
On 21.08.2015 12:04, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Should not the solution for this be tied to the user and group field
mentioned in the unit so for example the postgresql type service unit
contains...
User=postgres
On 21 August 2015 at 19:57, Dominick Grift dac.overr...@gmail.com wrote:
i think it kind of sucks that systemctl --user list-units can be used to
determine who is currently logged in.
You can see with `loginctl list-users` too
I once tried to prevent getting a list of users, but it's hard... I
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:10:51PM +0300, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
snip
i think it kind of sucks that systemctl --user list-units can be used to
determine who is currently logged in. ( it shows active mount units for
XDG_RUNTIME_DIR and since those have UID as name you can see who is
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:38:28PM +0300, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
Do they have access to `cat /proc/self/mounts`?
Ouch yes... ok that is a dead end i suppose
--
Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com
--
02DFF788
4D30 903A 1CF3 B756 FB48 1514 3148 83A2 02DF F788
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Dominick Grift dac.overr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:38:28PM +0300, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
Do they have access to `cat /proc/self/mounts`?
Ouch yes... ok that is a dead end i suppose
Right. That was my point. Restricting individual
What workaround do you suggest in the meantime ?
I'm currently using a very ugly hack which is an oneshot service that
runs ip tunnel del right before the PPP service starts (and ignores
eventual errors); is there a better way, possibly without touching the
actual PPP service file (I'd like
Hello.
I just re-read Lennart's posts (which i loved):
- Factory Reset, Stateless Systems, Reproducible Systems Verifiable Systems
and
- Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems
And i would like to know what's the state of both? Is there a place i can get
news about this two
Currently systemd-rfkill does not support devices that lose
power over suspend and do a disconnect()/probe() cycle (when the driver
does not implement a reset_resume() callback): systemd-rfkill will
restore the RFKill state that was saved on the last shutdown instead of
the one right before
This commit adds a udev rule to save the RFKill state on every change,
so systemd-rfkill always have the most up-to-date state. This also
removes the need for saving the RFKill state on shutdown, so
systemd-rfkill@.service does not have to be active until shutdown, which
in turn removes the need
Dear Lennart! That's what I have in my
/usr/share/polkit-1/actions/org.freedesktop.login1.policy:
action id=org.freedesktop.login1.power-off-ignore-inhibit
descriptionPower off the system while an application
asked to inhibit it/description
Patchset imported to github.
To create a pull request, one of the main developers has to initiate one via:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/compare/master...systemd-mailing-devs:1440172617-21794-2-git-send-email-jprvita%40endlessm.com
--
Generated by https://github.com/haraldh/mail2git
Forwarding this again to the full list,
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 06:25 +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Andrei Borzenkov [mailto:arvidj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:52 PM
To: Keller, Jacob E
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel]
Hi, I'm not experienced at all with systemd, and not much more in system
administration, and I don't know if I should post this here, but it is
the only list I found that seems to provide general support for systemd.
I want to encrypt my /tmp directory by putting it in an encrypted
partition
Made a demo because i was bored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrK5a7D77l0
In practice though this is probably not an option for you. It is very
expensive. however it is (optionally) supported by systemd and i just wanted to
counter
the misinformation.
i think it kind of sucks that systemctl
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Dominick Grift dac.overr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Made a demo because i was bored:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrK5a7D77l0
In practice though this is probably not an option for you. It is very
expensive. however it is (optionally) supported by systemd and i
systemd has a built-in extension to the SELinux MAC framework. If that,
and SELinux is enabled. Then you can use the SELinux framework and
systemd SELinux extension to configure which services may be controlled
by specified processes on a fined grained level using mandatory access control.
19 matches
Mail list logo
