Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Tue 02 Sep 2014, 22:31
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
The State of Package Management
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 12 of 15 [222 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Should Puppy's package format be changed?
Yes, without backwards compatibility.
28%
 28%  [ 11 ]
Yes, with backwards compatibility.
25%
 25%  [ 10 ]
No, but the PET format should be standardized/stricter.
20%
 20%  [ 8 ]
No, the PET format works fine.
25%
 25%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 39

Author Message
disciple

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 6430
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sat 25 Feb 2012, 18:35    Post subject:  

Moose on the loose wrote:
Will AUFS allow you to have more than one layered file system?

The whole point in it is that it has multiple layers - and the overhead of that is what some people don't like. e.g. every squashfile is in a separate layer.
I think you are trying to ask if more than one layer can be writable, and no, I think the way a layered filesystem works is that you can only write into the top layer.
Quote:
What I am thinking is making a mount point and mounting a second layered file system there. This way, we could get the effect of being able to write into lower layers. The "lower layer" really would be the top layer of the main file system. The "root" could be the mount point for the second system.
You can mount something (e.g. a partition or another save file) and write into it. You could keep your home directory outside of the save file this way if you want. It is traditional to keep various parts of the Unix / Linux filesystem on different partitions.
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to achieve though...

_________________
DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1049

PostPosted: Sat 25 Feb 2012, 19:15    Post subject:  

disciple wrote:
sunburnt wrote:
Q5sys; Yes, the long version of what I was saying. Well put...

disciple; The main bulk of files in Puppy are in the SFS file.
So most all of the files are more secure, mainly the critical exec.s and libs.
But loose file installs are open to attack ( .pet ) as they go in the Save file.
But adding SFS apps. does not have the loose file problem and is secure.
The Save file`s mostly config. files ( or it should be...), less damage done.

The save file is anything that something tries to change. So if the hypothetical linux virus wants to modify or delete a program, it does so, regardless of whether you have a frugal or full install. Your ability with a frugal install to get the original program back because it is in the .sfs is not really different from getting the original back from the install CD / live CD / repository with a traditional full install.
Squashfiles are great, but they are not a security feature. If you are paranoid about security you should look at other things, like for starters:
1) never creating a save file
2) not running everything as root
Or are you guys not actually talking about squashfiles, but squashfiles that are only mounted, not unioned? Isn't that pretty impractical for libs, as you'd end up including duplicates in every squashfile which has an app that depends on them?
Isn't it simpler just to make places like /usr read-only (hint: don't run as root)*.

* Note that I am a "root forever" guy... but if someone else wants to be paranoid about security, that's their choice.


The method I explained above would allow for the editing of additional SFS files, which would not be reflected in a safe file. Its totally impractical, but possible. Fact is, you can edit the system without those changes being reflected in the safe file.
2nd, I know you're repeating the mantra of 'dont run as root to be secure', but really thats not entirely accurate. Doesnt matter if the user is root or not. A properly written virus or rootkit will use system files that have root auth to do the work. The user not being root doesnt matter one bit, if the attack is utilizing something that is running on the system as root regardless of the user. Example I had a discussion the other day with someone about the possibility of using xorg itself as the attack vector. Doesnt matter what your user is... xorg runs as root. Another example would be utilizing a bug that exists within /usr/sbin/irqbalance or a bug in an console-kit-daemon.
Not running as root protects a user from user stupidity or user ignorance about proper web saftey.

Like all things, there is no one security fix. Its layers upon layers of security that help make you secure. Any single layer will always fail.

disciple wrote:
Quote:
What I am thinking is making a mount point and mounting a second layered file system there. This way, we could get the effect of being able to write into lower layers. The "lower layer" really would be the top layer of the main file system. The "root" could be the mount point for the second system.
You can mount something (e.g. a partition or another save file) and write into it. You could keep your home directory outside of the save file this way if you want. It is traditional to keep various parts of the Unix / Linux filesystem on different partitions.
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to achieve though...


That is a feature that TazOC implemented in LightHousePup. Upon first boot and creation of save file the user could decide if programs would install to the save file OR would be placed into a unique folder in the /mnt/home directory.
This way the user could (if they wanted) keep all their programs seperate, while their config settings were preserved in the safe file. I forget the exact version. I think it was the last 32 bit release.

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5016
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 00:11    Post subject:  

Yes; I said a properly setup standard loose file install would have read-only and read-write partitions ( or dirs. if installed to a single partition ).
And yes, a new virused file can be made or copied over one in the SFS file. That`s not the SFS files fault, it`s the loose file system of the Save file.
You`re sort of mixing apples with oranges, but you did say "in Puppy". So "in Puppy" you are correct of course, the SFS file only makes for quick recovery.

When I say Squash files I don`t mean SFS necessarily. I usually specify. Though SFS files are one type and could be included in some cases.

Consider... If the Squash file is not unioned with a Save file or any loose file system then it`s hard to hack. But access to the partition could.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
disciple

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 6430
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 04:11    Post subject:  

Quote:
2nd, I know you're repeating the mantra of 'dont run as root to be secure', but really thats not entirely accurate. Doesnt matter if the user is root or not. A properly written virus or rootkit will use system files that have root auth to do the work. The user not being root doesnt matter one bit, if the attack is utilizing something that is running on the system as root regardless of the user. Example I had a discussion the other day with someone about the possibility of using xorg itself as the attack vector. Doesnt matter what your user is... xorg runs as root.

I don't pay much attention to the mantra, but I was pretty sure a big focus of it is that xorg should never be run as root. It's not a simple matter of "the user" not being root, it's about everything being run with appropriate permissions.
sunburnt wrote:
When I say Squash files I don`t mean SFS necessarily. I usually specify. Though SFS files are one type and could be included in some cases.

Do you mind defining what you mean by "Squash files" then? Are some of them functionally different from SFS?

_________________
DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1049

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 10:37    Post subject:  

disciple wrote:
Quote:
2nd, I know you're repeating the mantra of 'dont run as root to be secure', but really thats not entirely accurate. Doesnt matter if the user is root or not. A properly written virus or rootkit will use system files that have root auth to do the work. The user not being root doesnt matter one bit, if the attack is utilizing something that is running on the system as root regardless of the user. Example I had a discussion the other day with someone about the possibility of using xorg itself as the attack vector. Doesnt matter what your user is... xorg runs as root.

I don't pay much attention to the mantra, but I was pretty sure a big focus of it is that xorg should never be run as root. It's not a simple matter of "the user" not being root, it's about everything being run with appropriate permissions.


attached is a quick capture of htop from 3 systems, opensuse, arch, and slacko. Xorg has to run as root. because the GDM, KDM, whatever has to start up to allow a user to log in and choose their Desktop manager. Since all that happens before a user logs in, it has to be run as root.
slacko.png
Description  htop capture from slacko
png

 Download 
Filename  slacko.png 
Filesize  105.93 KB 
Downloaded  190 Time(s) 
arch.png
Description  htop capture from arch
png

 Download 
Filename  arch.png 
Filesize  164.69 KB 
Downloaded  187 Time(s) 
aegis.png
Description  htop capture from opensuse
png

 Download 
Filename  aegis.png 
Filesize  213.76 KB 
Downloaded  188 Time(s) 

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moose On The Loose


Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 515

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 11:42    Post subject:  

disciple wrote:
Moose on the loose wrote:
Will AUFS allow you to have more than one layered file system?

The whole point in it is that it has multiple layers - and the overhead of that is what some people don't like. e.g. every squashfile is in a separate layer.
I think you are trying to ask if more than one layer can be writable, and no, I think the way a layered filesystem works is that you can only write into the top layer.
Quote:
What I am thinking is making a mount point and mounting a second layered file system there. This way, we could get the effect of being able to write into lower layers. The "lower layer" really would be the top layer of the main file system. The "root" could be the mount point for the second system.
You can mount something (e.g. a partition or another save file) and write into it. You could keep your home directory outside of the save file this way if you want. It is traditional to keep various parts of the Unix / Linux filesystem on different partitions.
I'm a little unclear what you are trying to achieve though...


Imagine the case where I have two wildly different computers. They require different drivers for the hardware and the screen's can't be set to the same resolution. If I want to be able to quickly move my work back and forth between these, I need to keep my work and all the settings separate.

Basically, I am trying to come up with a way to do that, and also to have the same programs installed on both. The ideal case would be to have a memory stick with two save files for hardware issues (one fore each computer) and a third save file for all of my work. This would allow my work to be compressed also.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5016
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 14:29    Post subject:  

Moose On The Loose; Yes, aufs will run more than one union at a time. Config. files and app. installs should be separate. Put work in a dir.
I see what you`re getting at here and I`ve thought the same in the past. Then I realized that the union is an unnecessary complexity to be rid of.

disciple; As I said, a non-unioned Squash file is safe from the union`s effects. It`s compiled with --prefix (/path/mountPoint) so it works when mounted only.
ChoicePup did this and it worked very well. As typical with Puppy variants it`s no longer with us, but it`s "proof of concept" is what`s important.
Now if Puppy package builders ( and Barry? ) would use it... Problems solved.

amigo; I agree again. A CD / DVD is a horrible boot / run device for an O.S. And the H.D. is the old standard, a USB flash drive is a more modern device.
A PC with 2GB or more of ram doesn`t need a swap, so it`s suited for flash. Flash isn`t perfect, but... Mass storage is still the realm of a H.D. of course.
PXE booting`s great for large groups of PCs, but not so much for 1 to 3 PCs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
disciple

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 6430
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun 26 Feb 2012, 20:42    Post subject:  

Moose On The Loose wrote:
Imagine the case where I have two wildly different computers. They require different drivers for the hardware and the screen's can't be set to the same resolution. If I want to be able to quickly move my work back and forth between these, I need to keep my work and all the settings separate.

Have you actually tried using the same USB stick Puppy install on both? I thought that it already handles this, by creating a separate xorg configuration for each.

_________________
DEATH TO SPREADSHEETS
- - -
Classic Puppy quotes
- - -
Beware the demented serfers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2240

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 04:18    Post subject:  

Something is wrong here. Two or three people are starting to agree with me sometimes... Was it something I said?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Aitch


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 09:26    Post subject:  

Laughing Laughing

nice, amigo...

Aitch Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2240

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 12:19    Post subject:  

Very Happy Very Happy + Very Happy
Not used to getting much love around here...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
greengeek

Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 2512
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 12:39    Post subject:  

.
Interesting topic. Some heated debate.

I vote for two things:

1) A continuation of the current fragmented status quo.
2) A newly defined package management/control system that satisfies the devs who see a need for change.

Why both approaches? Because I would compare Puppy’s development to evolution itself - variety is hugely important. Greater central control brings less variety. There is no reason why multiple “Puppy breeds” cannot co-exist.

Maybe some devs want a tighter pedigree (fine - no problem), but don’t forget that mongrels are often more appealing. I’m happy to see a “Pedigree Puppy” evolve, as long as other puppies are free to interbreed whatever they want under the Puppy name.

Sometimes one puppy breed survives because a single dev keeps it so.

Look at what ttuxxx has done with 2.14x It is perfect for those who use it and like it. And of course there are many other individual puppies in use on different machines, and those machines would be in landfills if not for those mongrel offshoots of puppy. It is a good history, and there will always be room for offshoots, even if a tighter “core” is built into other puppies.

So, if some devs want a different approach then maybe it is necessary to define a project involving a group of likeminded devs who wish to collaborate on a tightly controlled, new line of Puppy.

So, if some devs would like a tighter PPM, what will be it’s structure?

(sorry for the use of the word “mongrel”. It sounds mean but is intended respectfully)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5016
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 16:21    Post subject:  

amigo; You`re knowledgeable and so opinionated. A good place to be. This tends to make one brutally honest, but I`m not saying that`s you...
This all of course makes a target of you. My same problem is with politics. Different parts of anything are seen as good or bad, depends on your view.

My continued view is that there`s a lot to like about Squash files. There`s many ways to use them in a O.S., some fix problems, some don`t.
Read-only files should be in a Squash file without a writable union over it. This makes everything in the Squash file "rather" secure compared to Puppy.
Don`t use a union to add execs. and libs., use the paths and added dirs. /root/my-applications/bin:/root/my-applications/sbin ... /root/my-applications/lib
If these paths are at the end of PATH then what`s added can`t overshadow anything. If you want it to act like Puppy does, just put these paths at the start of PATH.
To change what`s in the Squash file a simple remake takes a few minutes. Not much worse than installing many of the .pet apps., all in all...
I hate long dir. path names "my-applications and my-documents". Use /root/apps. and /root/docs instead.

Last edited by sunburnt on Tue 28 Feb 2012, 03:19; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amigo

Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 2240

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 17:43    Post subject:  

I actually (optionally) use a couple of SFS's in my distro. wait, let me say exactly what I mean: I use file-system images which use the squashfs. I use them (optionally, remember) for the kernel-source and for kernel-modules -where read-only is usually no problem. *But*, they are part of a package so that the package-accounting still works. I only use them for these large components (kernel-source 460MB unpacked and modules ~60MB at the moment).

My arguments have not been against the use of squashfs in itself, in the right places. I'm against the idea of composing them from a mongrel-mix of files from all over the place without any way to account for them, or more importantly, easily reproduce the image when needed. I certainly see the logic in combining several *packages* inside an SFS, but including a bunch of maybe-duplicated or mixed-source libraries is not so good. You know, you could always just use a ramdisk or tmpfs and 'install' packages there on the fly, too. I just think that most of the ideas in use for adding 'modularity' to LiveCD's are a little crude.

It's kinda like the arguments about using AppDirs (or other similar concepts), where everything goes in its' own directory -which necessarily are gonna be non-standard locations -vis-a-vis PATH and LIBRARY_PATHs. Libs should nearly always be put in the standard locations -otherwise every program which is gonna use them must be told where they are. This is fine when you need to have multiple versions, for example, but should be avoided when possible. AppDirs, if placed under /opt are in the correct place, and it is 'legal' to create a link in /opt/bin to point to them -that means you don't need wrappers and PATH-setting for every program contained in an AppDir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Q5sys


Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 1049

PostPosted: Mon 27 Feb 2012, 18:35    Post subject:  

amigo wrote:
It's kinda like the arguments about using AppDirs (or other similar concepts), where everything goes in its' own directory -which necessarily are gonna be non-standard locations -vis-a-vis PATH and LIBRARY_PATHs. Libs should nearly always be put in the standard locations -otherwise every program which is gonna use them must be told where they are. This is fine when you need to have multiple versions, for example, but should be avoided when possible. AppDirs, if placed under /opt are in the correct place, and it is 'legal' to create a link in /opt/bin to point to them -that means you don't need wrappers and PATH-setting for every program contained in an AppDir.


You didnt chime in on the /opt thread a little while ago. Could you chime in there with your insight on that thread too? I'm curious about your thoughts on that issue alone.

_________________



My PC is for sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 12 of 15 [222 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Suggestions
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1301s ][ Queries: 15 (0.0093s) ][ GZIP on ]