Look, there is no reason to care about hashes. What is the fear
here, that the jffs2 filesystem will fail? We have pathnames.
Permissions are granted by the user. The only exception is when
the OS is initially installed, or when the whole OS is upgraded.
Permissions are tied to an inode. Since th
> As above, hashes can be computed on the unpacked activity bundles. No
> modification to the bundle format is necessary; moreover, why would you
> ever rely on the correctness of a manifest supplied by the bundle
> itself?
>
The current manifest format hashes everything in a directory. That inclu
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 03:03:24PM -0600, Jameson Chema Quinn wrote:
>>
>> As you can see, the present security difficulties stem from the lack of
>> effort spent on recording user intentions about what permissions should
>> be applied to what activities. Signatures do absolutely nothing to
>> addr
>
> As you can see, the present security difficulties stem from the lack of
> effort spent on recording user intentions about what permissions should
> be applied to what activities. Signatures do absolutely nothing to
> address this problem -- they only permit an as-yet undesigned system
> interpr
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:32:11PM -0400, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Eben Eliason wrote:
>| Is it possible that we could
>| simply have a P_ROOT permission as well, or does that blow Bitfrost out of
>| the water?
1. According to my reading of
On 1 Aug 2008, at 14:54, Walter Bender wrote:
> The keyboard issue is simply a matter of having the correct console
> keyboard map files installed. The one for Spanish is attached. Not
> sure what the current plan is for inclusion of these files (Dennis?).
> It should be installed in /lib/kbd/keym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eben Eliason wrote:
| Is it possible that we could
| simply have a P_ROOT permission as well, or does that blow Bitfrost out of
| the water?
It's called P_SF_RUN or P_SF_CORE, depending on what you mean by root. In
other words, yes, this was planned.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Walter Bender wrote:
> Why does it matter that you cannot adjust the screen brightness from
> the console using the special keys? You can adjust it from Sugar
> without root access.
so you switch from sugar to the console, something changes (including
noticing that the font n
2008/8/1 Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Why does it matter that you cannot adjust the screen brightness from
>> > the console using the special keys? You can adjust it from Sugar
>> > without root access. The id
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM, John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why does it matter that you cannot adjust the screen brightness from
> > the console using the special keys? You can adjust it from Sugar
> > without root access. The idea was to understand what limits we'd face
> > using
> Why does it matter that you cannot adjust the screen brightness from
> the console using the special keys? You can adjust it from Sugar
> without root access. The idea was to understand what limits we'd face
> using the console for root access instead of a special terminal
> activity. What are th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walter Bender wrote:
| What are the Sugar/X Window actions that require root
| access?
This discussion is becoming a little confusing. The problem is not just
"root" access. There are three accounts in play here: root, olpc, and
10005 (an arbitrary
Why does it matter that you cannot adjust the screen brightness from
the console using the special keys? You can adjust it from Sugar
without root access. The idea was to understand what limits we'd face
using the console for root access instead of a special terminal
activity. What are the Sugar/X
erik wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:03:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > numerous 'special keys' don't work at the console, including adjusting the
> > screen brightness.
>
> To get this to work we would have to push olpc-specific drivers into the
> kernel, correct?
not necessa
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:03:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> numerous 'special keys' don't work at the console, including adjusting the
> screen brightness.
To get this to work we would have to push olpc-specific drivers into the
kernel, correct?
Erik
__
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2008, at 03:25, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>> Curious as to what occasions need root access within X Windows? Maybe
>> the console is enough?
>>
>> -walter
>
> I don't think I've used the console in months, nice to know it's there
> in an emergency,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote:
> > 2) Often the olpc related scripts I'd be trying to use would have some
> > hooks into X, and other environment variables. Without a lot of env
> > hacking/guessing
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Gary C Martin wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2008, at 03:25, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>> Curious as to what occasions need root access within X Windows? Maybe
>> the console is enough?
That would work nicely for me, though it will work much less well for
people who desir
The keyboard issue is simply a matter of having the correct console
keyboard map files installed. The one for Spanish is attached. Not
sure what the current plan is for inclusion of these files (Dennis?).
It should be installed in /lib/kbd/keymaps/i386/qwerty
Regarding your second point, this is r
On 1 Aug 2008, at 03:25, Walter Bender wrote:
> Curious as to what occasions need root access within X Windows? Maybe
> the console is enough?
>
> -walter
I don't think I've used the console in months, nice to know it's there
in an emergency, but it was problematic to use for normal admin tasks
On 01.08.2008, at 14:43, James Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> http://dev.laptop.org/~bert/whiteonblack.tar.gz
>
> +1
>
> Works for me. But.
>
> Odd that it is slower than an xterm for displaying a "ps ax" ...
> 0.517s
> on 703 in the xterm
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:23:49AM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> http://dev.laptop.org/~bert/whiteonblack.tar.gz
+1
Works for me. But.
Odd that it is slower than an xterm for displaying a "ps ax" ... 0.517s
on 703 in the xterm, 3.068s in the text console ... why is it six times
slower?
(The
On 01.08.2008, at 04:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>> Maybe the console is enough?
>
> if the console font has been changed to something more readable it
> can be
> used.
Still wondering why Albert's font has not been adopted.
Every time I olpc-upd
Michael Stone writes:
> One of our present security difficulties is that the Terminal activity
> is not isolated. It is de-isolated so that it can serve the dual role of
> root terminal and 'general exploration' terminal. Perhaps reviving the
> Quake Terminal for the root-terminal role and isolati
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:08:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > One of our present security difficulties is that the Terminal activity
> > is not isolated. It is de-isolated so that it can serve the dual role of
> > root terminal and 'general exploration' terminal. Perhap
michael wrote:
> One of our present security difficulties is that the Terminal activity
> is not isolated. It is de-isolated so that it can serve the dual role of
> root terminal and 'general exploration' terminal. Perhaps reviving the
> Quake Terminal for the root-terminal role and isolating t
Note that I am currently working on a (somewhat large) patch which will not
turn off isolation for anything outside share/... (that is, the activities
in ~/Activities will all be isolated). This will close the gigantic security
hole where anything named "Terminal" or "Journal" was not isolated.
___
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Walter Bender wrote:
> Curious as to what occasions need root access within X Windows? Maybe
> the console is enough?
if the console font has been changed to something more readable it can be
used.
there end up being a surprising number of things where advanced users end
u
Curious as to what occasions need root access within X Windows? Maybe
the console is enough?
-walter
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of our present security difficulties is that the Terminal activity
> is not isolated. It is de-isolated so that it c
One of our present security difficulties is that the Terminal activity
is not isolated. It is de-isolated so that it can serve the dual role of
root terminal and 'general exploration' terminal. Perhaps reviving the
Quake Terminal for the root-terminal role and isolating the Terminal
activity proper
30 matches
Mail list logo
