Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On 02/10/2018 18:46, Larry Martell wrote: > I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. I don't think I've ever said this but I am very envious of all these people who had loads of work due to Y2K or were paid obscene amounts of money to tend systems over new year's eve/day. I was working for an ISP at the time and got none of this. Nothing happened. I don't even recall any special precautions being taken (apart from below). No over time, no obscene amounts of money. Admittedly there was a Y2K audit earlier in the year and so I presume that the consultants who did it got paid some obscene amounts of money. As I recall, they found very little except for one major system that we knew would need updating anyway. And I presume that the contractor who came in to fix the major system was rather well paid too. But no money for me. Wrong job, wrong time, wrong place, I guess. Perhaps I should be pleased the actual 99/00 changeover went so smoothly afterall. -- Mark Rousell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Unknown NFSv4 ACL permission
Our new-to-us Isilon is handling NFSv4 ACLs differently than other NFS file servers we've had. In particular, something causes an 'O' to pop up in the permission field, but I cannot find any documentation of it. For example, [Linux]$ nfs4_getfacl TODO A::OWNER@:tTcCy A::GROUP@:tcy A::EVERYONE@:rwaxtTnNcy A:O:OWNER@:rwadxtTnNcCoy A:gO:adm...@madboa.com:rwadxtTnNcy A:gO:readonly@madboa:rxtnc A:O:EVERYONE@:tncy I'll note that when those 'O' perms get added, our OmniOS (Solaris-alike) hosts cannot read the ACLs: [SunOS]$ ls -v TODO ls: can't read ACL on TODO: Invalid argument -rwxrwx--- 1 heinlein wheel2488 Oct 2 15:13 TODO If, on the Linux side, I run nfs4_editfacl and do nothing but remove the 'O' permission symbols, then things clear up. Has anyone here seen anything like this? My google-fu has failed. -- Paul Heinlein heinl...@madboa.com 45°38' N, 122°6' W ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
If you do that make sure it's a system you're happy to junk and reinstall. I have painful memories of trying to sort out systems we rolled forward over Y2K. Amongst other things the license manager became convinced we were trying to fiddle things. :-( On 02/10/18 20:07, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 10/2/18 10:41 AM, Johann Fock wrote: >> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > > If you define the problem as the limitations of system clock based on a > 32-bit representation of seconds relative to the epoch, then the answer > is "yes." The Linux kernel uses a 64-bit clock on 64-bit systems. > > Any given application may store dates in a format of its own choosing, > though, so its possible that applications running on CentOS 7 could > still have a problem. > > It's probably easier and faster to simply set the system clock of a test > host to the year 2040 and test the system and its applications than it > is to ask for opinions, though. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- J Martin Rushton MBCS signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Step-by-Step Tutorial: How to Setup Your Own e-Commerce Online Store using WooCommerce 3.4.5, Wordpress 4.9.8, and CentOS 1805 (LAMP) in Amazon AWS Cloud
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:39:52AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > I don't specifically mind tutorials being posted to the list .. BUT .. I > would like them to be in CentOS Namespaces. So either on > wiki.centos.org or blog.centos.org. Either is a proper venue as content can be peer-reviewed before posting and things that promote running selinux in disabled or permissive mode can just be chucked. John -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. -- Frank Zappa (1940-1993), composer, musician, film director pgphUiWIUpruK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On 10/2/18 10:41 AM, Johann Fock wrote: Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version If you define the problem as the limitations of system clock based on a 32-bit representation of seconds relative to the epoch, then the answer is "yes." The Linux kernel uses a 64-bit clock on 64-bit systems. Any given application may store dates in a format of its own choosing, though, so its possible that applications running on CentOS 7 could still have a problem. It's probably easier and faster to simply set the system clock of a test host to the year 2040 and test the system and its applications than it is to ask for opinions, though. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM Johann Fock wrote: >> >> Hallo >> Im using CentOS 7 >> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. In 2038 I will be > 79 - maybe I will have to come out of retirement to work on that. > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Centos 7 will probably be retired by then, soI'm not going to worry about it... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 13:42, Johann Fock wrote: > > Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > I doubt there is any one answer without a deep audit of all the binaries involved. Most date/clock code in 64 bit should be too big to care, but if you have any 32 bit code, then no idea. > Thanks > Johann Fock > > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM Johann Fock wrote: > > Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. In 2038 I will be 79 - maybe I will have to come out of retirement to work on that. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] 2038 year Problem
Hallo Im using CentOS 7 Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version Thanks Johann Fock Von meinem iPad gesendet ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Step-by-Step Tutorial: How to Setup Your Own e-Commerce Online Store using WooCommerce 3.4.5, Wordpress 4.9.8, and CentOS 1805 (LAMP) in Amazon AWS Cloud
On 09/28/2018 10:10 PM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: > As someone else already noted, "Could you please not post self- > promotional "tutorials" to the list?" > > Thanks for your understanding. > I don't specifically mind tutorials being posted to the list .. BUT .. I would like them to be in CentOS Namespaces. So either on wiki.centos.org or blog.centos.org. There is a process to get access to those areas, using the CentOS-Docs mailing list: https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] L1TF in CentOS
Hi, I've applied the latest kernel upticks of kernel and microcode_ctl for L1TF. Just rpm updates and rebooted, no further changes. kernel-2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.x86_64.rpm kernel-firmware-2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.noarch.rpm kernel-headers-2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.x86_64.rpm perf-2.6.32-754.3.5.el6.x86_64.rpm microcode_ctl-1.17-33.3.el6_10.x86_64.rpm L1TF has several mitigations. So far I can see that only this one is applied. # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/l1tf Mitigation: PTE Inversion Is this the definitive check? I'm trying to confirm the L1Data Cache flush isn't enabled. It's ok if only this PTE Inversion is applied for me, I just need to be sure, because when I read this url from Redhat, it says 2 of the 3 mitigations are enabled by default, but I see only 1: https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/L1TF "/All mitigations are enabled by default with the exception of disabling Hyper-Threading, which customers must take explicit manual steps to turn off./" Also, I haven't been able to find clarity on what mitigations need to be applied to VMs, which ones to VM servers, which to kvm instances and kvm servers, and if containers and container servers need any special treatment. Thanks! -->Pat ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] How to install Banshee on CentOS 7?
on centos 7 I tried to install banshee from EPEL yum install banshee gotting this error: Error: Package: banshee-2.6.2-11.el7.x86_64 (epel) Requires: libgpod-sharp >= 0.8.2 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest seems known problem but ignored to fix it in a year or more: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406012 I tried "yum insall --skip-broken banshee" however this will skip banshee itself! lol what else can I do to install banshee? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
