Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Lukasz Trabinski]

Hello

I would like to suggest to change max_loop from 8 to 16 or more if it
possible.

--- linux.org/drivers/block/loop.c      Wed Oct 24 15:23:11 2001
+++ linux/drivers/block/loop.c  Wed Oct 24 15:24:52 2001
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
 
 #define MAJOR_NR LOOP_MAJOR
 
-static int max_loop = 8;
+static int max_loop = 16;
 static struct loop_device *loop_dev;
 static int *loop_sizes;
 static int *loop_blksizes;

My second suggestions is a request for change owner linux tree from 1046 
uid and 101 gid to 0.0 for security reason.  

-- 
*[ Łukasz Trąbiński ]*
SysAdmin @wsisiz.edu.pl

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Dumitru Ciobarcianu]

On Mi, 2001-10-24 at 17:13, Lukasz Trabinski wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I would like to suggest to change max_loop from 8 to 16 or more if it
> possible.

max_loop=16 in your kernel command line if you use loop builtin or:
options loop max_loop=16 in /etc/modules.conf if you use it as an
module.

> My second suggestions is a request for change owner linux tree from 1046 
> uid and 101 gid to 0.0 for security reason.  

chmod -R root.root linux/ 
after you have unpacked the tarball.

//Cioby

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Lukasz Trabinski]

In article <1003933278.1496.6.camel@LNX.iNES.RO> you wrote:
>> I would like to suggest to change max_loop from 8 to 16 or more if it
>> possible.

> max_loop=16 in your kernel command line if you use loop builtin or:
> options loop max_loop=16 in /etc/modules.conf if you use it as an
> module.

I know about this option, but I think limit max=16 is much better.

> chmod -R root.root linux/ 
> after you have unpacked the tarball.

Unnecessarily extra command :) Sometimes I can forget about this and then
user with uid 1046 can modify my kernel source.

-- 
*[ Łukasz Trąbiński ]*
SysAdmin @wsisiz.edu.pl

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Miquel van Smoorenburg]

In article <20011024143850.EAC2598410@oceanic.wsisiz.edu.pl>,
Lukasz Trabinski  <lukasz@wsisiz.edu.pl> wrote:
>In article <1003933278.1496.6.camel@LNX.iNES.RO> you wrote:
>> chmod -R root.root linux/ 
>> after you have unpacked the tarball.
>
>Unnecessarily extra command :) Sometimes I can forget about this and then
>user with uid 1046 can modify my kernel source.

Simply unpack and compile the kernel as a normal user, not as root.
Only install the new kernel as root. Get into the habit of logging
in as a normal user and doing root stuff with 'su' or 'sudo'

Mike.
-- 
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
 and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[James Sutherland]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Lukasz Trabinski wrote:

> In article <1003933278.1496.6.camel@LNX.iNES.RO> you wrote:
> >> I would like to suggest to change max_loop from 8 to 16 or more if it
> >> possible.
>
> > max_loop=16 in your kernel command line if you use loop builtin or:
> > options loop max_loop=16 in /etc/modules.conf if you use it as an
> > module.
>
> I know about this option, but I think limit max=16 is much better.

I disagree: presumably increasing the limit takes resources, in which case
a fairly low default is best.

> > chmod -R root.root linux/

errr. chown perhaps? :)

> > after you have unpacked the tarball.
>
> Unnecessarily extra command :) Sometimes I can forget about this and then
> user with uid 1046 can modify my kernel source.

Just give UID 1046 to a new user, "linus" :)


James.
-- 
"Our attitude with TCP/IP is, `Hey, we'll do it, but don't make a big
system, because we can't fix it if it breaks -- nobody can.'"

"TCP/IP is OK if you've got a little informal club, and it doesn't make
any difference if it takes a while to fix it."
		-- Ken Olson, in Digital News, 1988

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Lukasz Trabinski]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, James Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > I know about this option, but I think limit max=16 is much better.
> 
> I disagree: presumably increasing the limit takes resources, in which case
> a fairly low default is best.

Not mounted loop devices too?

-- 
*[ Łukasz Trąbiński ]*
SysAdmin @wsisiz.edu.pl

Re: Two suggestions (loop and owner's of linux tree)

[Jens Axboe]

On Wed, Oct 24 2001, Lukasz Trabinski wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I would like to suggest to change max_loop from 8 to 16 or more if it
> possible.
> 
> --- linux.org/drivers/block/loop.c      Wed Oct 24 15:23:11 2001
> +++ linux/drivers/block/loop.c  Wed Oct 24 15:24:52 2001
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
>  
>  #define MAJOR_NR LOOP_MAJOR
>  
> -static int max_loop = 8;
> +static int max_loop = 16;
>  static struct loop_device *loop_dev;
>  static int *loop_sizes;
>  static int *loop_blksizes;

You just bumped loop memory usage by 24000 bytes on my system with
something that can be handled with a boot parameter. I'd rather see a
max_loop = 4 or something patch instead...

-- 
Jens Axboe

Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC

[Dead2]

I have an Asus CUV266-d motherboard, and want to use my Intel NIC's..

2.4.10 & 2.4.12 hangs while "Setting up routing"
No error messages appear.

2.4.x(4 maybe?) has both officail Intel drivers and the tulip drivers.
When loading the tulip, it hangs just like with todays kernels.
When loading the Intel driver, everything works just fine for a short
while..
20-40seconds I guess.. Then the computer hangs.

When not loading any NIC drivers, everything works just fine.

The NIC's i've tried are named "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Dual Port Server Adapter"
Have also tried a "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Adapter"

Any ideas of what to test?
I have the latest bios and have tried just about all bios settings.
'noapic' doesn't help.

-=Dead2=-

Re: Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC (also MSI-6321)

[Dead2]

Tested now with another motherboard with the same results.

MSI 6321 Pro 1.0

Both these motherboards use VIA dual-cpu chipsets.

Same results with 2.4.13-Pre6 on both motherboards.
I'm running out of ideas now..

-=Dead2=-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dead2" <dead2@circlestorm.org>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: 25 October, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC


> I have an Asus CUV266-d motherboard, and want to use my Intel NIC's..
>
> 2.4.10 & 2.4.12 hangs while "Setting up routing"
> No error messages appear.
>
> 2.4.x(4 maybe?) has both officail Intel drivers and the tulip drivers.
> When loading the tulip, it hangs just like with todays kernels.
> When loading the Intel driver, everything works just fine for a short
> while..
> 20-40seconds I guess.. Then the computer hangs.
>
> When not loading any NIC drivers, everything works just fine.
>
> The NIC's i've tried are named "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Dual Port Server
Adapter"
> Have also tried a "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Adapter"
>
> Any ideas of what to test?
> I have the latest bios and have tried just about all bios settings.
> 'noapic' doesn't help.
>
> -=Dead2=-
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC (also MSI-6321)

[Dead2]

Ooopss...

I have to excuse my error..  I said I used the tulip driver, but I don't.

When I said 'tulip', i meant the 'eepro100' driver.
When I said 'intel', i meant the 'e100' driver

Sorry for any confusion..

-=Dead2=-

Jeff: 'de4x5' didn't work. Not so strange I guess.. =/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dead2" <dead2@circlestorm.org>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: 25 October, 2001 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC (also MSI-6321)


> Tested now with another motherboard with the same results.
>
> MSI 6321 Pro 1.0
>
> Both these motherboards use VIA dual-cpu chipsets.
>
> Same results with 2.4.13-Pre6 on both motherboards.
> I'm running out of ideas now..
>
> -=Dead2=-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dead2" <dead2@circlestorm.org>
> To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: 25 October, 2001 11:52 AM
> Subject: Asus CUV-266-D vs Intel NIC
>
>
> > I have an Asus CUV266-d motherboard, and want to use my Intel NIC's..
> >
> > 2.4.10 & 2.4.12 hangs while "Setting up routing"
> > No error messages appear.
> >
> > 2.4.x(4 maybe?) has both officail Intel drivers and the tulip drivers.
> > When loading the tulip, it hangs just like with todays kernels.
> > When loading the Intel driver, everything works just fine for a short
> > while..
> > 20-40seconds I guess.. Then the computer hangs.
> >
> > When not loading any NIC drivers, everything works just fine.
> >
> > The NIC's i've tried are named "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Dual Port Server
> Adapter"
> > Have also tried a "Intel(R) PRO/100+ Adapter"
> >
> > Any ideas of what to test?
> > I have the latest bios and have tried just about all bios settings.
> > 'noapic' doesn't help.
> >
> > -=Dead2=-
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/