| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb ... |
One to hold the chair, one to select the bulb,one to turn the bulb, 50 to write the Hot Fixes for the instruction manual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54216
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony0945,
That's not the one I was thinking of.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah! It must be this one: | Quote: | Q: How many Microsoft hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, they redefine darkness as an industry standard... |
Very apropos. The other was for software engineers.
Last edited by Tony0945 on Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | Tony0945,
That's not the one I was thinking of. |
None - they declare darkness to be the new standard.
(I presume that's what you were looking for?}
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roki942
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 285
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb ...
Its much the same with systemd |
None --- It's a hardware problem!
*-Not a Bug ---- Won't Fix -* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | Ah! It must be this one: | Quote: | Q: How many Microsoft hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, they redefine darkness as an industry standard... |
Very apropos. The other was for software engineers. |
AND do you know how apt that is for systemd...
6th July reply...
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2017-July/039221.html
| Quote: | Now, because this is so weakly defined, we hence do not follow POSIX
rules, but filter out more that might be dangerous. Specifically:
1. We do not permit empty usernames
2. We don't permit the first character to be numeric
(This also filters out fully numeric user names)
3. We do not permit dots in usernames, neither at the beginning nor in
the middle.
4. We do not permit "-" at the beginning of usernames (something which
POSIX explicitly suggests, btw)
5. We require that the user name fits in the utmp user name field, so
that we can always log properly about it.
|
This isn't even documented in Systemd
10th july
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2017-July/039238.html
| Quote: | > Is this documented somewhere? If not, it would be great to have it
> documented. I'm pretty sure that this exact paragraph would be ok.
There's a longer (and not entirely complete) comment about this in the
sources, but other than that it's not explicitly documented.
|
A few utils do restrict this much, but a few don't. what is even more besar is the We do not permit dots in usernames, neither at the beginning nor in
the middle. YET fedora's adduser regex is: [a-zA-Z0-9._][a-zA-Z0-9._-]{0,30}[a-zA-Z0-9._-$]? which includes dot and dash...
So because systemd implement their own definition of what a valid user is RATHER than just parsing the passwd file (or equiv), quite a few packages are going to be updated.
restricting username starting with a number might be be preference but restricting dot and dash is bad really bad... windows usernames accept that quite happily so now a systemd machine cannot be part of an AD domain and a unit file executed by said user..
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8935
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wow... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ct85711
Veteran
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1791
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So because systemd implement their own definition of what a valid user is RATHER than just parsing the passwd file (or equiv), quite a few packages are going to be updated.
restricting username starting with a number might be be preference but restricting dot and dash is bad really bad... windows usernames accept that quite happily so now a systemd machine cannot be part of an AD domain and a unit file executed by said user.. |
I think this is really going to end up being a "do as I say, not what I do" kind of thing... After they realize what all this breaks, i.e. breaking samba and AD domains, this will probably end up being silently changed to magically work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 646
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And yet, one of the arguments made by the systemd proponents was that it was better documented than openrc...
Everything that is happening right now is precisely the stuff that, those of us that they labeled "systemd haters" predicted would come true... and we still haven't seen the worst of it yet.
These people have absolutely no clue what they are doing. There is no design that they are implementing. It's just a matter of continuously throwing things into the blob and then encouraging other projects to become dependent upon them.
There's a much, much larger security nightmare waiting to happen and the increasing monoculture (every systemd distribution will eventually be a clone of RedHat) is going to make it worse... this is still just little stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ct85711 wrote: | | Quote: | So because systemd implement their own definition of what a valid user is RATHER than just parsing the passwd file (or equiv), quite a few packages are going to be updated.
restricting username starting with a number might be be preference but restricting dot and dash is bad really bad... windows usernames accept that quite happily so now a systemd machine cannot be part of an AD domain and a unit file executed by said user.. |
I think this is really going to end up being a "do as I say, not what I do" kind of thing... After they realize what all this breaks, i.e. breaking samba and AD domains, this will probably end up being silently changed to magically work. |
yup.. one of the great things of linux is its organic evolution... a problem is seen and something comes along and improves things. This is either further improved upon or something else comes along ... the best solution prevails.
This design by committee or design by a fool is wrong... Take this username BS... there is actually only a few really limiting things on what a username can be, a whitespace (delimiter), a colon (again delimiter) etc... Coreutils explicitly states "try as a username then fallback to UID" for this very reason & this is also why a username as all numbers is bad practice.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb ... |
None - they'll bounce you around a loop of 10 different premium rate numbers until you give up asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Now, because this is so weakly defined, we hence do not follow POSIX
rules, but filter out more that might be dangerous. |
OMG..."filter out" as in "replace with root"??!!
| saellaven wrote: | | There's a much, much larger security nightmare waiting to happen and the increasing monoculture (every systemd distribution will eventually be a clone of RedHat) is going to make it worse... this is still just little stuff. |
Absolutely. I've been saying all along that the real black hats out there probably already have an arsenal of exploits, and are saving them for that very monoculture...especially once really important servers move to RHEL7, assuming everyone actually falls for that one. Scary stuff.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "We require that the user name fits in the utmp user name field, so that we can always log properly about it." |
I can't handle this level of stupidity this early in the morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3339
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | Quote: | | "We require that the user name fits in the utmp user name field, so that we can always log properly about it." |
I can't handle this level of stupidity this early in the morning. |
I'm rather impressed about this. The level of stupidity is just about to reach 11.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dorsai!
Apprentice
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 285
Location: Bavaria
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't even word right now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3339
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If glibc is going to bend under systemd, then I guess I'll go musl libc. I've already been thinking of that, but I need to make sure I can use all the programs I want.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8935
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | | If glibc is going to bend under systemd, then I guess I'll go musl libc. |
Don't you think that is *a bit* premature? You have no idea if a resulting patch has any real-world implication for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54216
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | Quote: | | "We require that the user name fits in the utmp user name field, so that we can always log properly about it." |
I can't handle this level of stupidity this early in the morning. |
I'm rather impressed about this. The level of stupidity is just about to reach 11. |
Just wait a while https://xkcd.com/670/
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | Zucca wrote: | | If glibc is going to bend under systemd, then I guess I'll go musl libc. |
Don't you think that is *a bit* premature? You have no idea if a resulting patch has any real-world implication for you. |
glibc is already crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3339
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | Zucca wrote: | | If glibc is going to bend under systemd, then I guess I'll go musl libc. |
Don't you think that is *a bit* premature? You have no idea if a resulting patch has any real-world implication for you. |
I was rather talking in general. glibc full of tweaks and fetures only useful to systemd... Then I'll change at least.
But I've been thinking of musl in few places. I just need to find out if it's worth it.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | | asturm wrote: | | Zucca wrote: | | If glibc is going to bend under systemd, then I guess I'll go musl libc. |
Don't you think that is *a bit* premature? You have no idea if a resulting patch has any real-world implication for you. |
I was rather talking in general. glibc full of tweaks and fetures only useful to systemd... Then I'll change at least.
But I've been thinking of musl in few places. I just need to find out if it's worth it. |
Support is noticeably better than it has been so I would invite you to try it. Reportedly you can launch X11 and use most software, but as you start pulling in what you specifically use you will likely find failures that need to be addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21607
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To me, the strange part of this pid cache argument is that using setns to move to a pid namespace only changes the namespace that will be used for new children, but does not move the caller into that namespace. I seem to recall that the cited reason for this was specifically because of concerns that it would confuse userspace to have getpid change its result as a side effect of calling setns. The Red Hat explanation cites concern about the interaction of the cache with pid namespaces, but pid namespaces were intentionally made slightly weird (relative to other namespaces) to avoid those interactions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577
| Linus wrote: | So I see many different approaches (that could be combined: I like
combining (a) and (c), for example), and absolutely none of them
involve the random "take some values from init".
And yes, a large part of this may be that I no longer feel like I can
trust "init" to do the sane thing. You all presumably know why. |
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the links.
Wow, that was a weird read; the original reporter made a lot of sense, explaining how debian had already patched out the caching in glibc.
The somewhat obtuse response to this (from a regular) was | Quote: | | Optimization is never in a vacuum. If glibc does something cheaply, it seems reasonable to take advantage of it. |
which is simply bulshytt: it sounds like it's saying something meaningful, but it's just hot air.
The upstream bug clearly shows the behaviour is being removed, and Linus' historical commentary (from 2004, no less) makes it obvious that this has always been a contentious approach; not something to "take advantage of", but something to patch out.
Then you get to Poeterring's reply which is simply bizarre, showing zero insight into the problem, and ending with: | Quote: | we could certainly cache that value in our code too, but given
that glibc does that already in the normal case I think this is better
left to be fixed in glibc rather than our code. |
At this point, I simply "cannot word", either. How dumb is this guy?
Naturally, someone picks him up on it, as in: "You do know you have the history backwards, right?" and the response is more bulshytt: | Quote: | Debian undid the PID caching to fix some issue that has been fix
properly now, and hence the PID caching should be turned on again. |
showing he still thinks the pid caching is kewl, and hasn't even bothered to fill in the gaps in his knowledge with the historical commentary provided on his own list.
Blathering on about how Fedora gets it right (more 'reason' why "the PID caching should be turned on again") is shot down, and confirmed by one of the regulars, and only then does Poeterring finally come out and acknowledge maybe there's an issue; in someone else's code of course. | Quote: | Seems Fedora regressed on
this too recently. Meh.
Somebody should probably file a bug about this regression and get
clarification if this is going to remain slow, or if they are going to
fix that again... If this is going to remain slow, we shoud probably
find a different way to detect forks... |
Note how he completely ignores the detailed information given about glibc moving forward, and indeed the bug report which makes it obvious that the changes are upstream.
No, this dumbass wants more "clarification" from a division of the company he works for.
The bit that really made me laugh was | Quote: | | we could install a pthread_atfork() handler and set some flag... |
as if he's the guy with the knowledge.
This was suggested to him on the bug report he filed; after admitting he's "Not sure I follow," he goes on to whine about how he "would have preferred if glibc wouldn't regress on this without more consideration."
That just takes the biscuit; there's been a great deal of consideration on this issue, and Poeterring is clearly the guy who moves ahead and shoves out code without thinking, never mind undetaking a bit of basic research.
OFC the guy has to hit him over the head with it again (in comment 7), before he gets it.
I love that he's having to use POSIX interfaces for everything. ;-)
I am sorry to have gone into such detail; I simply could not accommodate the disparity between how everyone else involved takes time to think, and ponder what is said to them, then does some basic research to find out more, before coming back to the list, or bug-report; and how cavalier the guy they are all trusting with their systems is: about the basic approach of learning your tools, and learning the domain, before you even approach implementation.
Reading it, I simply could not believe that this is how programming will be done in the future; not with clarity, focus and humility, but with bluster, hype and bulshytt in place of reason.
I have a feeling we're just watching some of the dinosaurs that won't be around in 20 years, go through their death-throes.
We don't hear about the ones from 30 or 40 years ago, because no-one still uses them, and everyone involved is either dead, or too embarrassed to admit it.
They had all the associated hype, all the brouhaha and marketing campaigns, to cover for the lack of basic competence, too.
LOL, thanks for the light relief.
Certainly is in line with systemdbust norms; "invalid user? -- run as root." ;) NOT A BUG.
Not a true coder, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
