Hi, I'm doing some large-scale security experiments on Debian
security. I'm using UML to do the whole thing on a cluster.
Hostfs seems to make everything owned by root -- even files
created by non-root users. I'm currently using 2.4.26-3 (Debian
package). I found a few posts via Google mention
On Thursday 09 June 2005 21:23, antoine wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:17 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 18:53, antoine wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:31 +0100, antoine wrote:
> > > > > > Now, if someone could have a look at hppfs I could resurect my
> > > > > > h
Forwarded Message
> From: Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: SELinux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Blaisorblade
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] 2.6.12-rc6-mm1 patches testing
> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:45:49 -0400
> On Thu, 2005-06
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 02:34, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 21:47, Nix wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested tentatively:
> > > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 18:21, Nix wrote:
> > >> OK, so it's a -static TT build that's failing?
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > Built,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 06:16:55PM +0200, roland wrote:
> Did anyone try it yet ?
As usual with open source, many people say they'll do many things. So one
time I said that i'll eventually finish a little project ULDD, which is
an userspace loop device (such as lufs [1], but for block devices).
B
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:17 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 18:53, antoine wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:31 +0100, antoine wrote:
> > > > > Now, if someone could have a look at hppfs I could resurect my
> > > > > honeypots.
> > > >
> > > > I've not the time, however test
> > > > Yep, that part is much more specific to my setup: the place where you
> > > > install the UML instances is not part of the LSB, so I didn't include
> > > > the file labels in the previous email. What is the consensus on where
> > > > UML should be installed on a production system? (assuming
On Thursday 09 June 2005 19:52, antoine wrote:
> [OT: Mostly SELinux discussion]
Updated the title too.
> > > Yep, that part is much more specific to my setup: the place where you
> > > install the UML instances is not part of the LSB, so I didn't include
> > > the file labels in the previous email
[OT: Mostly SELinux discussion]
> > Yep, that part is much more specific to my setup: the place where you
> > install the UML instances is not part of the LSB, so I didn't include
> > the file labels in the previous email. What is the consensus on where
> > UML should be installed on a production
On Thursday 09 June 2005 17:56, antoine wrote:
> > > Then I tried adding some more experimental features...
> > > Attached is a stacktrace I encountered (pcap related):
> >
> > It happens only when inside the chroot, right?
> Yes.
> > > Seems like the pcap patch
> >
> > ? You applied it on your o
On Thursday 09 June 2005 18:53, antoine wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:31 +0100, antoine wrote:
> > > > Now, if someone could have a look at hppfs I could resurect my
> > > > honeypots.
> > >
> > > I've not the time, however test the attached patches. The first one
> > > fixes the basical bugs;
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:31 +0100, antoine wrote:
> > > Now, if someone could have a look at hppfs I could resurect my
> > > honeypots.
> > I've not the time, however test the attached patches. The first one fixes
> > the
> > basical bugs; the second one could be needed to fix a fd leak... but I
> > Now, if someone could have a look at hppfs I could resurect my
> > honeypots.
> I've not the time, however test the attached patches. The first one fixes the
> basical bugs; the second one could be needed to fix a fd leak... but I don't
> think it's needed at all, so test with only the first
> > Then I tried adding some more experimental features...
> > Attached is a stacktrace I encountered (pcap related):
> It happens only when inside the chroot, right?
Yes.
> > Seems like the pcap patch
> ? You applied it on your own, or have I merged it somewhere without noticing?
> See my signatu
On Thursday 09 June 2005 03:25, antoine wrote:
> I noticed a new set of patches were out, so I gave it usual bashing.
> Maybe this will be useful to someone else:
> 1) as before fp-state does not apply.
> 2) os-main gave me a reject on arch/um/kernel/main.c
> fixed by simply removing the file.
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
