* Tim Freeman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Does anyone know where the LSM framework is sufficient to implement vserver?
I know that the context specific hostname and IP (when binding to
INADDR_ANY) didn't fit cleanly into LSM hooks. I created a list quite
some time back, if no one has more uptoda
From: Liam Helmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I like option a; I think that using the LSM framework is the best way to
>go, and ensures that you have a whole lot less work in the future ->
>instead of patching in a vserver framework, instead you have a more
>established API that will be less of a moving t
Hello Everyone,
I will follow up and add some more info. Alexey Lyashkov was hired by
Positive Software in 2002 to add enhancements and speed up development
of vserver project (it was vserver back then). Several more developers
where added at later stages. I was mostly interested in creating vi
I personally use Gentoo for the vast majority of my work, so a redhat
specific patchset isn't that useful to me. I noticed FreeVPS when I was
looking around, but the fact that it's so distribution-specific caused
me to pass it by without much more than a second glance. (Like most
linux geeks, I'm e
n Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:34:00PM -0500, Igor Seletskiy wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> My name is Igor Seletskiy. I own psoft (maker of freeVPS). I wander what
> are your thoughts about merging linux-vserver & freeVPS?
> I believe at some points freeVPS is more advanced then linux-vserver
> (like our
I like option a; I think that using the LSM framework is the best way to
go, and ensures that you have a whole lot less work in the future ->
instead of patching in a vserver framework, instead you have a more
established API that will be less of a moving target to develop against.
It also makes it
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:25:50PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> 1) should the 2.4 branch be frozen, and if when?
> 2) is it bad if 2.4 and 2.6 branches diverge?
> 3) is multitude (2.4/2.6/2.6SE) preferred over
> development speed?
> 4) is a 2.4/2.6 migration path important to you?
hello,
> the options seem to be:
> a) freeze the 2.4 vserver development at some
> point, only do some updating and maintenance,
> and continue with a SE-Linux/LSM version of
> linux-vserver
to freeze 2.4 and concentrate on 2.6 is a good idea because 2.6 is the future
and the 2.4 tr
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:25, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> 1) should the 2.4 branch be frozen, and if when?
Feature frozen - probably anytime. We have been using 2.6 kernel where
possible for a month now with no major issues (except on x86_64.)
I personally feel that fixes to major bugs, security iss
Answers interleaved.
1) should the 2.4 branch be frozen, and if when?
I think you can freeze this as soon as 2.6 becomes stable enough to rely
on. Big security holes/crashes could be patched, but not new features.
2) is it bad if 2.4 and 2.6 branches diverge?
I do not think so, see above
Hi Community!
recently Enrico and I had a discussion (not the first)
about the future of linux-vserver, and what path to
choose for 2.6 ...
the options seem to be:
a) freeze the 2.4 vserver development at some
point, only do some updating and maintenance,
and continue with a SE-Linux
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:21:57PM +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have just built a brand new machine with the latest in stable vserver
> setup, but am observing some strange behaviour.
>
> IBM server
> Xeon(TM) CPU
> Fusion MPT SCSI Host driver 2.05.05+
> eth0: Tigon3 [rev 1002 PHY(
Hi all,
I have just built a brand new machine with the latest in stable vserver
setup, but am observing some strange behaviour.
IBM server
Xeon(TM) CPU
Fusion MPT SCSI Host driver 2.05.05+
eth0: Tigon3 [rev 1002 PHY(5703)] (PCIX:100MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT
eth1: Tigon3 [rev 1002 PHY(5703)] (P
[ Sorry, last mail went out before being finished; when I would have a
dog I could say "my dog went over the keyboard" but unfortunately I do
not have a dog and no excuse therefore ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enrico Scholz) writes:
>> I couldn't think of any huge security holes that would create - c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Excell) writes:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 02:39, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Excell) writes:
>>
>> Seems to be the root of all evil... 'ps' (used by vps) and alpha
>> vserver-stat are accessing (and requiring) /proc/uptime which is not
>> visibly by
Hello,
I uploaded version 0.28 of util-vserver to
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/util-vserver/
Its changes are
- BUGFIX: fixed context creation when both fakeinit-flag and a
static context is wanted; previous versions ignored the fakeinit
flag in this situation
16 matches
Mail list logo
