On 10/25/09 11:47 PM, Kirk Wolf k...@dovetail.com wrote:
Does such an effort distract from LSB?
It's orthogonal to it, but separate. LSB details where such an animal would
live, the universal binary idea is what you're delivering. I think that
universal binaries would simplify things (cf all
This is a scary article. I don't have a Linux on z system to test it out on.
http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225
On 10/26/2009 at 11:46 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
This is a scary article. I don't have a Linux on z system to test it out on.
Even if you did, it wouldn't help. Looks like uClibc doesn't know about
s390[x] as a build target. I'm not going to spend the time
Hi List,
In my /var/log/messages I see the following:
Oct 26 10:10:23 linux11 rchal: CPU frequency scaling is not supported by your
processor.
Oct 26 10:10:23 linux11 rchal: boot with 'CPUFREQ=no' in to avoid this warning.
Oct 26 10:10:23 linux11 rchal: Cannot load cpufreq governors - No cpufreq
McKown, John wrote:
This is a scary article. I don't have a Linux on z system to test it out on.
http://www.catonmat.net/blog/ldd-arbitrary-code-execution/
Oh, jeez, guys.
This is a kid's trick. The victim has to be stupid enough to execute ldd
against
a binary in the scamming user's
Also if you are now shying away from running ldd, just make sure the
binary is of type ELF
and you are safe, the examination not the execution will take place. To
make sure something
you are about to ldd is ELF, just do this sort of thing:
$ od -c /usr/bin/grep | head -1
000 177 E L
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack Woehr wrote:
? Keep users who would do such things out of shell access. Let 'em use the
web interface you provide them instead, it's safer that way.
What he says. This boils down to niener niener - you think you aren't
executing my code
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack Woehr
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:06 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: ldd arbitrary code execution - good coders code,
great reuse
McKown, John wrote:
This is a
McKown, John wrote:
Problem is, I've known such. And, to be brutally honest, I could have been caught myself
simply due to ignorance about how/what ldd works.
Of course. Everyone does once. Some how the Unix world survives. Like
you guys somehow survived with your indescribably
lame
McKown, John wrote:
Problem is, I've known such. And, to be brutally honest, I could have been caught myself
simply due to ignorance about how/what ldd works.
There are more subtle attacks on Linux integrity.
In any case,
chmod 700 ldd
if ldd is too powerful w/r/t the
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack Woehr
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:38 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: ldd arbitrary code execution - good coders code,
great reuse
snip
Yes. They could. Which is why
On 10/26/2009 at 12:07 PM, Bernie Wu bernard...@ncci.com wrote:
-snip-
I modified my zipl.conf and added CPUFREQ=no after vmpoff=LOGOFF
vmhalt=LOGOFF,
ran zipl -V and rebooted.
No change. I'm still getting the messages.
This worked fine for me. Did you make sure to add it to all the
Anyone running Filemaker on LoZ?
New requests to centrally host.
In addition
Are there any new developments in serving windows (yes I'm serious) on
LoZ within a guest.
Feedback is appreciated.
Gerard C. Shockley
Boston University
gsh...@bu.edu mailto:gsh...@bu.edu
617.353.9898 (w)
We are just starting to use OSA-Express3 10 Gb ports for SLES10-SP2 Linux
guests. We're trying to use these with TSM servers running on SLES10 to
backup other non-zSeries servers in our environment. We are using the 10 Gb
OSAs connected to VSWITCHes in zVM 5.4. Currently we have only one SLES10
On 10/26/2009 at 1:54 PM, Shockley, Gerard C gsh...@bu.edu wrote:
Anyone running Filemaker on LoZ?
I don't see how they would be, since it's Intel-AMD/PPC only and no source code
is available.
In addition
Are there any new developments in serving windows (yes I'm serious) on
LoZ within
Craig,
In another SHARE session, I seem to remember that if you need to have
very communications high throughput
then you do not want to use VSWITCHes. Instead you want to dedicate a
connection to the OSA adapter.
(I am unable at the moment to find that presentation.)
However, in Mario Held's
It doesn't run on Z, just Windows and OS X.
Shockley, Gerard C wrote:
Anyone running Filemaker on LoZ?
New requests to centrally host.
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Hi Craig and Ron,
I am the customer that Rob's case study was based on. I had the exact same
problem (with 1 GbE OSA's) that you are having. Your problem is indeed the
VSWITCH. Kick it and use native bonding in Linux. If you need more than one
guest, buy more OSA's, they are way cheaper than
From Craig Collins grizl...@gmail.com
We wondered if a nic setting in SLES10 could be keeping the connection
from getting above the 1 Gb/s mark,
We don't have a OSA-Express3 10 Gb, but what are you driving that file
transfer with? ftp? iperf? One thread?
Have you look at the cpu cosumption that
Hi Pieter,
Do you have any numbers to compare vswitch vs native? OSA throughput, and
cpu?
Thanks
-
Please consider the environment before printing this email and any
attachments.
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the
individual or
LSB is much more than standard file system layouts.
It allows you to build a common binary package (for a given processory
architecture) that can be installed on any LSB-compliant distro (with that
processor architecture).
This is accomplished by building and linking your binary with import
Mark Post wrote:
On 10/26/2009 at 11:46 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
This is a scary article. I don't have a Linux on z system to test it out on.
Even if you did, it wouldn't help. Looks like uClibc doesn't know about
s390[x] as a build target. I'm not going to
For the finer points of performance measurement I defer to Rob. This is a
highlevel coarse view:
With a VSWITCH with LACP involved and using two full IFL's with 4 OSA GbE I
could barely exceed 100 MB/s with no other activity at all. With the same 2
IFL's and 4 OSA dedicated and bonded within
Might be of public interest...
Hi Craig,
Using SLES10 SP2 in /etc/sysconfig/hardware/hwcfg-qeth-bus-ccw-0.0.0c00:
STARTMODE=auto
MODULE=qeth
MODULE_OPTIONS=
MODULE_UNLOAD=yes
SCRIPTUP=hwup-ccw
SCRIPTUP_ccw=hwup-ccw
SCRIPTUP_ccwgroup=hwup-qeth
SCRIPTDOWN=hwdown-ccw
CCW_CHAN_IDS=0.0.0c00 0.0.0c01
Craig,
Pieter gave you the information on how to bond multiple OSA adapters together.
He did not cover the user direct entries. You will need some dedicate
statements in your directory. Lets say that your Linux guest is looking for
the vswitch at 0.0.0600 0.0.0601 0.0.0602, and your OSA
On Monday, 10/26/2009 at 05:10 EDT, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
rfos...@baldor.com wrote:
The other wild card is z/VM 6.1. According to Reed Mullen's SHARE
presentation, is that it contains changes to enhance z/VM's virtual
networking. I don't know by how much. At SHARE, Bill Bitner said that
The other thing we will need to do is set the vlanid since we wont be doing
that through the vswitch as we have been up until now. We found the command
to do that against the nic definition, which is what I am guessing we will
need to do after everything is setup with the bonding.
Thanks for the
On Monday, 10/26/2009 at 04:21 EDT, Harder, Pieter
pieter.har...@brabantwater.nl wrote:
For the finer points of performance measurement I defer to Rob. This is
a
highlevel coarse view:
With a VSWITCH with LACP involved and using two full IFL's with 4 OSA
GbE I
could barely exceed 100 MB/s with
Also keep in mind that the TSM window size and buffer size will have a
significant impact on throughput. For a 10G interface, larger is better for
both.
A sadly realistic checkpoint, though: You are unlikely to EVER get an
appreciable percentage of wire speed out of the 10G interfaces using TSM
Do you have statistics for packets on each interface in the port group?
When I had the VSWITCH setup I was looking closely into this. While not
perfectly balanced due to our client distribution, there was reasonable traffic
going on on all interfaces. And it was the processor power available.
A sadly realistic checkpoint, though: You are unlikely to EVER get an
appreciable percentage of wire speed out of the 10G interfaces using TSM no
matter what you do; the protocol is half duplex in a lot of places which
kills the interface data pipelining.
If you can get it to exceed 15-20% of
31 matches
Mail list logo
