On Sunday 20 March 2005 20:17, Rob Landley wrote:
If I open a device like /dev/loop0 or /dev/console from a hostfs mount,
I'll get the UML device, not the host device, right?
Obviously right.
So why are the permissions checks on hostfs devices done relative to the
_host_ user?
What is the
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 11:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Catalin(ux aka Dino) BOIE [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paolo
'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Dike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Increase UML command line size. And fix a crash from
passing an overly-long command line to UML.
XXX:
Just verified that without TT mode enabled, 2.6.11-bk7 tree compiles (when
CONFIG_SYSCALL_DEBUG is disabled) but does not run if when compiled TT mode
was disabled. I've verified this with a clean compile (I had this doubt), both
with static link enabled and disabled. Sample output:
./vmlinux
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:03, Gerd Knorr wrote:
1) how the user must choose what he wants (SUBARCH=i386 can be useful,
maybe a Kconfig option would be nice - we need to choose the default
depending on the host arch).
That one is easy -- just use linux32 make That will switch the
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:53:20PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:03, Gerd Knorr wrote:
1) how the user must choose what he wants (SUBARCH=i386 can be useful,
maybe a Kconfig option would be nice - we need to choose the default
depending on the host arch).
That
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 02:19 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
Ok, I'm now seeing that UML uses access() (inside access_file()) to check
permissions.
See hostfs_permission - access_file - access. hostfs_permission (not
access_file) should skip the access_file call in case its type is
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 18:09, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use rep_nop instead of barrier for cpu_relax, following $(SUBARCH)'s
doing that (i.e. i386 and x86_64).
IIRC, Jeff had the idea, to use sched_yield() for this (from a discussion
on #uml).
Hmm, makes sense, but
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 09:13, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 02:19 pm, Blaisorblade wrote:
Ok, I'm now seeing that UML uses access() (inside access_file()) to check
permissions.
See hostfs_permission - access_file - access. hostfs_permission (not
access_file) should
Blaisorblade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 18:09, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use rep_nop instead of barrier for cpu_relax, following $(SUBARCH)'s
doing that (i.e. i386 and x86_64).
IIRC, Jeff had the idea, to use sched_yield() for this
Blaisorblade wrote:
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 18:09, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Use rep_nop instead of barrier for cpu_relax, following $(SUBARCH)'s
doing that (i.e. i386 and x86_64).
IIRC, Jeff had the idea, to use sched_yield() for this (from a discussion
on #uml).
Hmm,
On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:35, Blaisorblade wrote:
Ok, I've put on the site the announcements of SKAS-v8 (which is identical
to -rc5, I just need to update the tarballs), of the test tree (very test)
for UML/2.4.
It does not compile with GCC 3.4, but from what I see no 2.4.27 tree will
11 matches
Mail list logo
