On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 01:12:23PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nick Sayer writes:
: The "why bother" is easy -- one should not have to belong to group
: operator to determine the current battery state. Too many things
: already have to be sgid (at least) without
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wes Peters writes:
: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
: tes:
:
: So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
: sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC, nn%,
: or N/A ? Or should
Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wes Peters writes:
: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
: tes:
:
: So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
: sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC,
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:15:18 -0700
Nick Sayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
nsayer The "why bother" is easy -- one should not have to belong to group
nsayer operator to determine the current battery state. Too many things
nsayer already have to be sgid (at least) without making this another reason.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nick Sayer writes:
: The "why bother" is easy -- one should not have to belong to group
: operator to determine the current battery state. Too many things
: already have to be sgid (at least) without making this another reason.
You should already be a member of group
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hajimu UMEMOTO writes:
: nsayer The "why bother" is easy -- one should not have to belong to group
: nsayer operator to determine the current battery state. Too many things
: nsayer already have to be sgid (at least) without making this another reason.
: I love this
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warner Losh writes:
: Yes. The right answer isn't to kludge this through a sysctl, but
: instead it is to fix apm to that it is safe to make it world read
: only. Is there a way inside a ioctl to see if you have something open
: for write access?
OK. I found the
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:14:24 -0600
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
imp In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hajimu UMEMOTO writes:
imp : nsayer The "why bother" is easy -- one should not have to belong to group
imp : nsayer operator to determine the current battery state. Too many things
imp :
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hajimu UMEMOTO writes:
: Indeed, I wish to have a method to obtain required information without
: extra privilege. We need safety way.
: Currentry, GKrellM opens /dev/apm with O_RDWR. I just tried to open
: with O_RDONLY and see it is sufficient for APMIO_GETINFO.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:45:29 -0600
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
imp It is sufficient for APMIO_GETINFO, but it will introduce a security
imp hole as the apm ioctls aren't careful enough about their sanity
imp checking. I've added such sanity checking in my local copy of apm and
imp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hajimu UMEMOTO writes:
: ports/sysutils/gkrellm/ :-)
ah. ok. I feel dumb now... :-)
thank you umemoto-san.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Nick Sayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Nick Sayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wri
tes:
So what does everyone think? Is
Nick Sayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wes Peters writes:
: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
: tes:
:
: So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
: sysctl
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cyrille Lefevre writes:
: well. as you said before, you just want a read-only sysctl. if the driver is not
: secure. it's not my fault. it shouldn't be so complicated to secure it.
: do you now if the permissions sets using make_dev() in i386/apm/apm.h are
: used at a
I was paging through the distributed.net client changelog and they
had a note there basically asking for a sysctl interface to apm --
in short, they wanted the ability for non-root users to detect
power state (AC/batt) and battery level. At first, I wondered why
they regarded this differently
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
tes:
So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC, nn%,
or N/A ? Or should the format be numeric (999 = AC, =100 = battery %,
-1 = N/A)? Or should we not bother? :-)
yes
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
tes:
So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC, nn%,
or N/A ? Or should the format be numeric (999 = AC, =100 = battery %,
-1 = N/A)?
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
tes:
So what does everyone think? Is it suitable to add a read only
sysctl 'machdep.apm_powerstate' that reports either AC, nn%,
or N/A ? Or should the format be numeric (999 = AC, =100 =
18 matches
Mail list logo
