Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
"Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? > > o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v I've been using it on 2.2.18pre (and before) and 2.4.0-test. Also older kernels (limited use). > o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V Get the latest one (2.3.18 right now; needed changes for 2.4 are in it). Have been using this strain with 2.2.18pre and older kernels too. > o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version Pass. -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: > The 2.4.0test9 Changes file mentions the following and I'd like > to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be > able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to > initscript trickery: > > Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? > > o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v > o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V > o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version Debian-unstable has those versions or newer (modutils is .17), but still comes with a 2.2 kernel. And there are a lot of people running unstable. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
> could you please apply the following 'broken_suid' NFS mount patch? Applied. Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
> " " == Andries Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v
> If anything is wrong, bug reports and patches are welcome.
Hi Andries,
Nothing wrong/buggy to report, but could you please apply the
following patch in order to support the 'broken_suid' NFS mount
option. The latter enables a backward-compatibility feature.
To summarize the feature:
The old NFS had a feature whereby if a setuid process failed due to
EACCES or EPERM, the RPC engine would drop the privileged credentials,
and retry using the uid/gid (instead of fsuid/fsgid).
Of course, this sort of thing may be a security problem, so in 2.4.x
(and in 2.2.18pre) it has been disabled by default. Unfortunately some
broken programs rely on this silliness instead of bothering to
dropping privileges themselves (the setuid version of xterm trying to
read ~/.Xauthority being one of the more prominent offenders); hence
the decision to make a new mount option...
Cheers,
Trond
diff -u --recursive --new-file mount-2.9u.orig/nfs_mount4.h mount-2.9u/nfs_mount4.h
--- util-linux-2.10m.orig/mount/nfs_mount4.hTue Sep 5 14:24:42 2000
+++ util-linux-2.10m/mount/nfs_mount4.h Tue Sep 5 14:27:55 2000
@@ -67,5 +67,6 @@
#define NFS_MOUNT_VER3 0x0080 /* 3 */
#define NFS_MOUNT_KERBEROS 0x0100 /* 3 */
#define NFS_MOUNT_NONLM0x0200 /* 3 */
+#define NFS_MOUNT_BROKEN_SUID 0x0400 /* 4 */
#endif
diff -u --recursive --new-file mount-2.9u.orig/nfsmount.c mount-2.9u/nfsmount.c
--- util-linux-2.10m.orig/mount/nfsmount.c Tue Sep 5 14:24:42 2000
+++ util-linux-2.10m/mount/nfsmount.c Tue Sep 5 14:36:13 2000
@@ -217,6 +217,7 @@
int nocto;
int noac;
int nolock;
+ int broken_suid;
int retry;
int tcp;
int mountprog;
@@ -313,6 +314,7 @@
posix = 0;
nocto = 0;
nolock = 0;
+ broken_suid = 0;
noac = 0;
retry = 1; /* 1 minutes ~ 1 week */
tcp = 0;
@@ -423,6 +425,8 @@
nolock = !val;
else
printf(_("Warning: option nolock is not
supported.\n"));
+ } else if (!strcmp(opt, "broken_suid")) {
+ broken_suid = val;
} else {
if (!sloppy) {
printf(_("unknown nfs mount option: "
@@ -446,6 +450,10 @@
#if NFS_MOUNT_VERSION >= 3
if (nfs_mount_version >= 3)
data.flags |= (nolock ? NFS_MOUNT_NONLM : 0);
+#endif
+#if NFS_MOUNT_VERSION >= 4
+ if (nfs_mount_version >= 4)
+ data.flags |= (broken_suid ? NFS_MOUNT_BROKEN_SUID : 0);
#endif
if (nfsvers > MAX_NFSPROT) {
fprintf(stderr, "NFSv%d not supported!\n", nfsvers);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 12:09:57AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? > > o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v util-linux is advertised as "all kernel and all (g)libc versions". (Since recently I have a libc 4.3 system, and 4.3 is quite a lot worse than 4.4. Maybe I won't fix util-linux to work with this very ancient stuff, and the claim becomes "all kernel versions since 0.99 and all (g)libc versions since 4.4".) If anything is wrong, bug reports and patches are welcome. Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 06:09:57 Mike A. Harris wrote: > I'm particularly concerned with the modutils 2.3.15. During the > 2.0.x -> 2.2.x transition I was not able to use the same modutils > with both kernels and had initscripts determine the kernel > version, and uninstall the RPM and install the proper RPM for > modutils. > > I've not tried to dual boot (2.2.x/2.4.x) a system yet, so any > help would be appreciated. > I have been dual-booting 2.2.17 and 2.2.18-pre vs 2.4-test, and using latest available modultils. Now I only have 2.2.18-pre15 with modutils 2.3.18 in a Mandrake box and works ok. -- Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:09:57 -0400 (EDT), "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? > >o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V > >I'm particularly concerned with the modutils 2.3.15. During the >2.0.x -> 2.2.x transition I was not able to use the same modutils >with both kernels I dual boot 2.2 and 2.4 kernels using current modutils without any problems, that is how I test my modutils changes. You should even be able to boot 2.0 kernels with modutils 2.3.18, as long as modutils was configured with --enable-compat-2-0. Systems using libc5.0 and need --enable-use-syscall in modutils, but that is automatically detected by modutils >= 2.3.15. >William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >Some people get success with the old kernel and the new modutils, others >find that it does not work. Most find that it does not work. Details please. I have no outstanding bug reports on lack of backwards compatibility in modutils. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:09:57 -0400 (EDT), "Mike A. Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V I'm particularly concerned with the modutils 2.3.15. During the 2.0.x - 2.2.x transition I was not able to use the same modutils with both kernels I dual boot 2.2 and 2.4 kernels using current modutils without any problems, that is how I test my modutils changes. You should even be able to boot 2.0 kernels with modutils 2.3.18, as long as modutils was configured with --enable-compat-2-0. Systems using libc5.0 and need --enable-use-syscall in modutils, but that is automatically detected by modutils = 2.3.15. William T Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Some people get success with the old kernel and the new modutils, others find that it does not work. Most find that it does not work. Details please. I have no outstanding bug reports on lack of backwards compatibility in modutils. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
" " == Andries Brouwer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v
snip
If anything is wrong, bug reports and patches are welcome.
Hi Andries,
Nothing wrong/buggy to report, but could you please apply the
following patch in order to support the 'broken_suid' NFS mount
option. The latter enables a backward-compatibility feature.
To summarize the feature:
The old NFS had a feature whereby if a setuid process failed due to
EACCES or EPERM, the RPC engine would drop the privileged credentials,
and retry using the uid/gid (instead of fsuid/fsgid).
Of course, this sort of thing may be a security problem, so in 2.4.x
(and in 2.2.18pre) it has been disabled by default. Unfortunately some
broken programs rely on this silliness instead of bothering to
dropping privileges themselves (the setuid version of xterm trying to
read ~/.Xauthority being one of the more prominent offenders); hence
the decision to make a new mount option...
Cheers,
Trond
diff -u --recursive --new-file mount-2.9u.orig/nfs_mount4.h mount-2.9u/nfs_mount4.h
--- util-linux-2.10m.orig/mount/nfs_mount4.hTue Sep 5 14:24:42 2000
+++ util-linux-2.10m/mount/nfs_mount4.h Tue Sep 5 14:27:55 2000
@@ -67,5 +67,6 @@
#define NFS_MOUNT_VER3 0x0080 /* 3 */
#define NFS_MOUNT_KERBEROS 0x0100 /* 3 */
#define NFS_MOUNT_NONLM0x0200 /* 3 */
+#define NFS_MOUNT_BROKEN_SUID 0x0400 /* 4 */
#endif
diff -u --recursive --new-file mount-2.9u.orig/nfsmount.c mount-2.9u/nfsmount.c
--- util-linux-2.10m.orig/mount/nfsmount.c Tue Sep 5 14:24:42 2000
+++ util-linux-2.10m/mount/nfsmount.c Tue Sep 5 14:36:13 2000
@@ -217,6 +217,7 @@
int nocto;
int noac;
int nolock;
+ int broken_suid;
int retry;
int tcp;
int mountprog;
@@ -313,6 +314,7 @@
posix = 0;
nocto = 0;
nolock = 0;
+ broken_suid = 0;
noac = 0;
retry = 1; /* 1 minutes ~ 1 week */
tcp = 0;
@@ -423,6 +425,8 @@
nolock = !val;
else
printf(_("Warning: option nolock is not
supported.\n"));
+ } else if (!strcmp(opt, "broken_suid")) {
+ broken_suid = val;
} else {
if (!sloppy) {
printf(_("unknown nfs mount option: "
@@ -446,6 +450,10 @@
#if NFS_MOUNT_VERSION = 3
if (nfs_mount_version = 3)
data.flags |= (nolock ? NFS_MOUNT_NONLM : 0);
+#endif
+#if NFS_MOUNT_VERSION = 4
+ if (nfs_mount_version = 4)
+ data.flags |= (broken_suid ? NFS_MOUNT_BROKEN_SUID : 0);
#endif
if (nfsvers MAX_NFSPROT) {
fprintf(stderr, "NFSv%d not supported!\n", nfsvers);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
could you please apply the following 'broken_suid' NFS mount patch? Applied. Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: The 2.4.0test9 Changes file mentions the following and I'd like to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to initscript trickery: Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version Debian-unstable has those versions or newer (modutils is .17), but still comes with a 2.2 kernel. And there are a lot of people running unstable. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
"Mike A. Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v I've been using it on 2.2.18pre (and before) and 2.4.0-test. Also older kernels (limited use). o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V Get the latest one (2.3.18 right now; needed changes for 2.4 are in it). Have been using this strain with 2.2.18pre and older kernels too. o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version Pass. -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: > to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be > able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to > initscript trickery: Some people get success with the old kernel and the new modutils, others find that it does not work. Most find that it does not work. Your best bet would be to create two sets of modutils binaries and have the init scripts pick the right one based on the kernel you are running that day. I think uninstalling and reinstalling RPMs to do this (especially on Debian ) is rather like changing your gas tank whenever you switch between premium and unleaded fuel, but I guess it works :} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
2.2 -> 2.4 transition questions
The 2.4.0test9 Changes file mentions the following and I'd like to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to initscript trickery: Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version I'm particularly concerned with the modutils 2.3.15. During the 2.0.x -> 2.2.x transition I was not able to use the same modutils with both kernels and had initscripts determine the kernel version, and uninstall the RPM and install the proper RPM for modutils. I've not tried to dual boot (2.2.x/2.4.x) a system yet, so any help would be appreciated. -- Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate Computer Consultant - Capslock Consulting Copyright 2000 all rights reserved -- Be up to date on nerd news and stuff that matters: http://slashdot.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
The 2.4.0test9 Changes file mentions the following and I'd like to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to initscript trickery: Will the following work with 2.2.17 as well? o util-linux 2.10o # kbdrate -v o modutils 2.3.15 # insmod -V o PPP2.4.0 # pppd --version I'm particularly concerned with the modutils 2.3.15. During the 2.0.x - 2.2.x transition I was not able to use the same modutils with both kernels and had initscripts determine the kernel version, and uninstall the RPM and install the proper RPM for modutils. I've not tried to dual boot (2.2.x/2.4.x) a system yet, so any help would be appreciated. -- Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate Computer Consultant - Capslock Consulting Copyright 2000 all rights reserved -- Be up to date on nerd news and stuff that matters: http://slashdot.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: 2.2 - 2.4 transition questions
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote: to know if after installing updated packages, if I'll still be able to use a 2.2.x kernel ok, or if I'll have to resort to initscript trickery: Some people get success with the old kernel and the new modutils, others find that it does not work. Most find that it does not work. Your best bet would be to create two sets of modutils binaries and have the init scripts pick the right one based on the kernel you are running that day. I think uninstalling and reinstalling RPMs to do this (especially on Debian g ) is rather like changing your gas tank whenever you switch between premium and unleaded fuel, but I guess it works :} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
