From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-08 17:45:02
|
a.p...@dn... said: > Howard> There seems to be a tradeoff between running 'jail' for > Howard> memory protection and speed. Without jail it seems to run > Howard> adequately fast on my AMD host. You should make sure you > But then you lose an advantage of using UML, don't you ? IMO, a carefully setup chroot around a non-jail UML will give you close to the same security as "jail". A nasty person can break out onto the host, but would have a real hard time breaking out of the chroot. They would be reduced to trying to DOS the host, which is something that "jail" does prevent. Jeff |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-13 18:14:52
|
> whore:/var/lib/dpkg# apt-get install strace > Reading Package Lists... Error! > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > E: Problem opening /var/lib/dpkg/status > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened. Ummm, I don't supposed you could strace that :-) It would be good to know what system call is failing. Jeff |
From: Adam H. <ad...@do...> - 2002-03-14 17:07:12
|
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Jeff Dike wrote: > > whore:/var/lib/dpkg# apt-get install strace > > Reading Package Lists... Error! > > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > > E: Problem opening /var/lib/dpkg/status > > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > > E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened. > > Ummm, I don't supposed you could strace that :-) > > It would be good to know what system call is failing. The msync() call. However, I use apt in my uml all the time. Never seen any errors. |
From: <sh...@bo...> - 2002-03-14 17:22:40
|
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 11:05:02AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Jeff Dike wrote: > > > > whore:/var/lib/dpkg# apt-get install strace > > > Reading Package Lists... Error! > > > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > > > E: Problem opening /var/lib/dpkg/status > > > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > > > E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened. > > > > Ummm, I don't supposed you could strace that :-) > > > > It would be good to know what system call is failing. > > The msync() call. This is with HostFS.. I will get an strace .. > However, I use apt in my uml all the time. Never seen any errors. |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-14 18:15:26
|
ad...@do... said: > The msync() call. Duh, I missed that. However, it's reporting success, and apt is still bitching. Some clues as to why that's happening (i.e. what's going through apt's little mind) would be good. Also the arguments would be good to have. Jeff |
From: <sh...@bo...> - 2002-03-14 20:35:01
|
Success.. just wanted to report that the kerneli patches against the host kernel and losetup have created a wonderfull little crypto loop device for me and uml.. I xferred in my old root from another uml and ubd0=/dev/loop0 it works very well IMHO.. just for you data security nuts. Shane Spencer |
From: Adam H. <ad...@do...> - 2002-03-15 09:13:54
|
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jeff Dike wrote: > ad...@do... said: > > The msync() call. > > Duh, I missed that. > > However, it's reporting success, and apt is still bitching. Some clues > as to why that's happening (i.e. what's going through apt's little mind) > would be good. > > Also the arguments would be good to have. I can look at the source, I'll send info tomorrow after sleep. |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2002-03-23 02:35:03
|
> whore:/var/lib/dpkg# apt-get install strace > Reading Package Lists... Error! > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > E: Problem opening /var/lib/dpkg/status > E: Unable to write mmap - msync (0 Success) > E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened. Fixed. This was a stupid bug in hostfs_writepage. It was returning a count on success rather than 0. Jeff |
From: Adrian P. <a.p...@dn...> - 2002-03-08 17:54:34
|
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <jd...@ka...> writes: Jeff> a.p...@dn... said: Howard> There seems to be a tradeoff between running 'jail' for Howard> memory protection and speed. Without jail it seems to run Howard> adequately fast on my AMD host. You should make sure you >> But then you lose an advantage of using UML, don't you ? Jeff> IMO, a carefully setup chroot around a non-jail UML will Jeff> give you close to the same security as "jail". A nasty Jeff> person can break out onto the host, but would have a real Jeff> hard time breaking out of the chroot. They would be reduced Jeff> to trying to DOS the host, which is something that "jail" Jeff> does prevent. Thanks for the clarification (something for the docs ?), Sincerely, Adrian Phillips -- Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [OK] |