Messages in this thread |  | | From | Wolfram Kleff <> | Date | Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:58:27 +0200 |
| |
I have some questions/problems regarding the Linux Kernel: (Linux Kernel 2.0.15)
1) In /proc/mounts the root filesystem device is called "rootfs" but in ../src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt it is called: "/dev/root root device symbolic Current root filesystem" so why don't we call it "/dev/root" instead of "rootfs" ?
2) A security problem: The "setterm -reset" escape seqence doesn't clean the console history-scrollback buffer ! The Problem: A logged out console user leaves his "footprints" in the history-scrollback buffer which is a vulnerability in a multiuser environment. There should be a escape sequence like "setterm -reset" that cleans the history-scrollback buffer without using "ways-around".
3) /proc/cpuinfo claims a 0.01 less BogoMIPS value than the bootup code.(dmesg) Which value is correct and why is there a difference ? (bug ?) (Why is it calculated two times with a different formula ?)
4) A seek to /dev/full returns e.g. "unknown error 10000" for seek 10000. (The kernel device driver doesn't change the input value, so input value=return value - in this case 10000) Is this correct ? Wouldn't ESPIPE be better ?
5) If I create a directory with mkdir(dirname,01777) the permisson of the created directory is 0777 (no sticky flag). (Yes, umask IS 0000) Is this a bug or a feature ?
6) Real bug: "cp /proc/kcore /...." can hold ("freeze") the kernel e.g. with X started. Not even a klog bug report is delivered. Ok, never do nasty things with the superuser, but there should be a few "savety belts" around/in the kernel memory get routine.
7) Why do we need the updated as a real process ? Yes, I know its functionality, I just want to know why it isn't a kernel process like kflushd or kswapd ? Is there a reason for it, I don't understand ? The problem is, if the updated is killed accidently, never started or whatever might happen, the blocks wouldn't be written back to disk. Wouldn't it be a good idea for 2.1.x to implement it as a kernel process ?
I hope for answers (and official bug fixes/kernel patches), Wolfram Kleff
|  |