Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > This isn't going to have an effect on the ability to use kernel ppp for
> > other things. The tty orientation of pppd and the outdated, unmodular
> > design on ppp(4) have taken care of that. This patch gives people
> > the functionality they want (p
Bakul Shah wrote:
> Thank you for explicating the security argument! I'll also
> point out that hardwiring module names makes it harder to
> experiment with replacement modules (i.e. I may want to
> develop if_super_duper_ppp).
Actually, this isn't an issue (I'm assuming that you want it to
be na
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > This isn't going to have an effect on the ability to use kernel ppp for
> > other things. The tty orientation of pppd and the outdated, unmodular
> > design on ppp(4) have taken care of that. This patch gives people
> > the functionality they want (pppd just working) wit
> From: Terry Lambert [mailto:tlambert2@;mindspring.com]
>
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > This isn't going to have an effect on the ability to use kernel ppp for
> > other things. The tty orientation of pppd and the outdated, unmodular
> > design on ppp(4) have taken care of that. This patch gives
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:20:33PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:05:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Depending on the value of "sysctl kern.module_path", if the "if_ppp"
> > module does not exist, and one of the path components is writeable,
> > then this would permit
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:05:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > This isn't going to have an effect on the ability to use kernel ppp for
> > other things. The tty orientation of pppd and the outdated, unmodular
> > design on ppp(4) have taken care of that. This patch gives
Brooks Davis wrote:
> This isn't going to have an effect on the ability to use kernel ppp for
> other things. The tty orientation of pppd and the outdated, unmodular
> design on ppp(4) have taken care of that. This patch gives people
> the functionality they want (pppd just working) without any m
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 05:34:15PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Here's a new patch that gives the user more of a hint at how to add PPP
> > support and only loads the module if they are actully root. How's this
> > look?
>
> I still don't like it. How to explain
>
> I don't think it is pppd
> Here's a new patch that gives the user more of a hint at how to add PPP
> support and only loads the module if they are actully root. How's this
> look?
I still don't like it. How to explain
I don't think it is pppd's responsibility to muck with
modules. It is like mount kldloading a dis
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:35:22PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > If someone who actually uses pppd could test it, perferably in both
> > sceneios, I'll see about getting it commited.
>
> Here's a new patch that gives the user more of a hint at how to add PPP
> support and on
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:35:22PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> If someone who actually uses pppd could test it, perferably in both
> sceneios, I'll see about getting it commited.
Here's a new patch that gives the user more of a hint at how to add PPP
support and only loads the module if they are
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:43:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > It's a moderately common case in -CURRENT, when kernel structure
> > sizes change, and you build a new kernel without new modules, and
> > a module refuses to load. It's not technically correct. The old
> > m
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:43:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> It's a moderately common case in -CURRENT, when kernel structure
> sizes change, and you build a new kernel without new modules, and
> a module refuses to load. It's not technically correct. The old
> message might not be either, bu
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > > Until pppd is taught to create the interface if one doesn't
> > > exist, this information needs to be in /usr/src/UPDATING.
> >
> > pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather it needed
> > to learn to check for
> > Until pppd is taught to create the interface if one doesn't
> > exist, this information needs to be in /usr/src/UPDATING.
>
> pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather it needed
> to learn to check for ppp support in a non-stupid way. The following
> patch should do it a
Bruce Evans wrote:
> > patch should do it as well as making pppd do the right thing when
> > support isn't compiled in, but a module is available. It should make
> > things work with a GENERIC kernel.
>
> I disagree with auto-loading of modules for anything, but especially in
> setuid programs li
Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > If someone who actually uses pppd could test it, perferably in both
> > > sceneios, I'll see about getting it commited.
> >
> > Try running you program when the module is there, but fails to load.
> > You got rid of the failure message that it used to print.
>
> No, it ju
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:41:33AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Until pppd is taught to create the interface if one doesn't
> > exist, this information needs to be in /usr/src/UPDATING.
>
> pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather i
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:58:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather it needed
> > to learn to check for ppp support in a non-stupid way. The following
> > patch should do it as well as making pppd do the right thi
Brooks Davis wrote:
> pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather it needed
> to learn to check for ppp support in a non-stupid way. The following
> patch should do it as well as making pppd do the right thing when
> support isn't compiled in, but a module is available. It sho
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:15:55PM +, Dave Evans wrote:
> > > Is anyone using pppd on CURRENT. somewhere between may and October it
> > > seems to have broken. My KERNEL is GENERIC, my sources are dated cvs
> > > -D2002-10-20, but I now get a messag
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:41:33AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Until pppd is taught to create the interface if one doesn't
> exist, this information needs to be in /usr/src/UPDATING.
pppd doesn't need to be taught to create the interface. Rather it needed
to learn to check for ppp support in a non
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:15:55PM +, Dave Evans wrote:
> > Is anyone using pppd on CURRENT. somewhere between may and October it
> > seems to have broken. My KERNEL is GENERIC, my sources are dated cvs
> > -D2002-10-20, but I now get a message about needing facilities in the
> > kernel. Ho
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:15:55PM +, Dave Evans wrote:
> Is anyone using pppd on CURRENT. somewhere between may and October it
> seems to have broken. My KERNEL is GENERIC, my sources are dated cvs
> -D2002-10-20, but I now get a message about needing facilities in the
> kernel. However, the
Is anyone using pppd on CURRENT. somewhere between may and October it
seems to have broken. My KERNEL is GENERIC, my sources are dated cvs
-D2002-10-20, but I now get a message about needing facilities in the
kernel. However, the kernel has many ppp entry points, I haven't
modified GENERIC which
25 matches
Mail list logo
