Re: kdb: add rdmsr and wrmsr commands for i386
Keith Owens wrote: Before using MSR, you must first check that the cpu supports the instruction, rd/wrmsr cause an oops on 486 or earlier. Also using an invalid msr number causes an oops, so use rd/wrmsr_safe(). I didn't bother implementing those checks because kdb recovers nicely from GPF anyway. It's the valid MSR writes that could cause unrecoveable problems! :) -- // Bernardo Innocenti \X/ http://www.codewiz.org/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: modprobe msr fail!
CONFIG_X86_MSR=y means that MSR support is compiled into the kernel, not as a module. So you do not need to do modprobe. The functionality is built-in. There will be a file named /dev/cpu/0/msr. In image 386, the config was: CONFIG_X86_MSR=m so with that build, you did need to do the modprobe. Before you do the modprobe, the /dev/cpu/0/msr file will not exist, but it will appear after the modprobe. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am Luna. I want to modprobe msr on OLPC. (I use MIT image 426 on B2) But it is fail. The error message is “FATAL: Module msr not found.” To look at config file, I find CONFIG_X86_MSR=y Someone can tell me what happen. I had returned MIT image 386. The command really works. Thanks. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
modprobe msr fail!
Hi, I am Luna. I want to modprobe msr on OLPC. (I use MIT image 426 on B2) But it is fail. The error message is “FATAL: Module msr not found.” To look at config file, I find CONFIG_X86_MSR=y Someone can tell me what happen. I had returned MIT image 386. The command really works. Thanks. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
RE: modprobe msr fail!
Sorry, I misunderstand the mean. The functionality has been built-in, and I get right msr value. Thank you. Luna -Original Message- From: Mitch Bradley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:10 PM To: Luna Huang (�S��玲) Cc: devel@laptop.org Subject: Re: modprobe msr fail! CONFIG_X86_MSR=y means that MSR support is compiled into the kernel, not as a module. So you do not need to do modprobe. The functionality is built-in. There will be a file named /dev/cpu/0/msr. In image 386, the config was: CONFIG_X86_MSR=m so with that build, you did need to do the modprobe. Before you do the modprobe, the /dev/cpu/0/msr file will not exist, but it will appear after the modprobe. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am Luna. I want to modprobe msr on OLPC. (I use MIT image 426 on B2) But it is fail. The error message is “FATAL: Module msr not found.” To look at config file, I find CONFIG_X86_MSR=y Someone can tell me what happen. I had returned MIT image 386. The command really works. Thanks. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Trac #1425] Verify that camera activities close the camera device when not in use.
On May 17, 2007, at 14:26 , Zarro Boogs per Child wrote: #1425: Verify that camera activities close the camera device when not in use. - +-- Reporter: jg | Owner: cjb Type: task| Status: new Priority: high| Milestone: BTest-4 Component: distro | Version: Resolution: |Keywords: power Verified: 0 | - +-- Comment (by tomeu): Yesterday we added an 'active' property to sugar.activity.Activity. The shell will set it to True or False when the user switches between activites. You can listen to changes on the 'notify::active' signal. Is this enough? I assume this is a DBus signal? Could you add that to the API spec? http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_Factory_DBus_API - Bert - ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Trac #1520] Entering text in Paint needs an extra 'enter'
Manu is working on it... making steady progress and working with Eben and the mt of mtpaint On 5/17/07, Zarro Boogs per Child [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #1520: Entering text in Paint needs an extra 'enter' --+- Reporter: Carla| Owner: walter Type: defect | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Trial-2 Component: pixel paint | Version: Build 385 Resolution: |Keywords: Verified: 0| --+- Changes (by jg): * milestone: Untriaged = Trial-2 Comment: Walter, do we have someone who is supposed to sugarize paint? -- Ticket URL: http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/1520#comment:1 One Laptop Per Child http://laptop.org/ -- Walter Bender One Laptop per Child http://laptop.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: owner id in .sugar/default/
Hi, On Thursday 17 May 2007 04:04, Ivan Krstić wrote: Hal Murray wrote: That feels like the tip of a security iceberg. Somebody has to be able to authorize access to data on the server without the appropriate key, including getting the key. I don't think that's anything new from the computer security standpoint. You have to trust your sysadmin. The interesting part for OLPC will be bringing the local sysadmins up to speed on security. I agree. Correct. I explained this to people in today's security meeting: the school server maintains a UUID - child identity mapping. Backups are identified as belonging to a particular UUID. A teacher can log into the school server and use a graphical interface to reassign existing backups for a particular UUID to another UUID by modifying the mapping. This covers laptop destruction or exchange for any reason. Yup. But it would also be nice, if the pupils can ask the server for their backups, without going via the teacher. For that, an access key on the laptop would be needed. (So that it's not possible to request someone elses backup.) In case the laptop breaks or is stolen, the backup should be accessable via the teacher. (And a new laptop key needs to be genereated.) So IMHO the backup has to be stored encrypted twice: once with a school key, and once with a laptop key (kids key). And it would surely be nice, if the laptop keys survives reflashing the laptop. Once the kids are old enough that they're worried about the teacher using a spare XO to invade their privacy, I dont think the teachers are the (biggest) security threat here. Random strangers on the other side of the street are more worrysome IMHO. (As we all know, strangers with candy... ;-) For more details, see P_DOCUMENT_BACKUP and P_PASSWORD in http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Bitfrost . Neither P_DOCUMENT_BACKUP nor P_PASSWORD seem complete to me. Also it says that http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Bitfrost is the authoritive version, which is much less specific. Is there a process to finalize the document and make it binding? I joined the security list today. regards, Holger pgpdfQPRkeyQK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: owner id in .sugar/default/
Holger Levsen wrote: Yup. But it would also be nice, if the pupils can ask the server for their backups, without going via the teacher. For that, an access key on the laptop would be needed. (So that it's not possible to request someone elses backup.) I don't think you understood my original mail. Backups are retrieved from the server by virtue of a laptop's UUID -- not a cryptographic key -- so the *only* instance where you have to ask a teacher to obtain a backup is when your laptop was destroyed. In case the laptop breaks or is stolen, the backup should be accessable via the teacher. (And a new laptop key needs to be genereated.) See above. So IMHO the backup has to be stored encrypted twice Unnecessary. I dont think the teachers are the (biggest) security threat here. Random strangers on the other side of the street are more worrysome IMHO. We're talking about *backup* security here, not security in general. Neither P_DOCUMENT_BACKUP nor P_PASSWORD seem complete to me. P_DOCUMENT_BACKUP describes the general principle; P_PASSWORD isn't complete because it's not completely clear how that'll work yet, and it's not a hard target for the ship date unless we have some extra time left over to implement it. Is there a process to finalize the document and make it binding? I'm working on finishing some sections, but what's there now is authoritative. -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x147C722D ___ Devel mailing list Devel@laptop.org http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
