search for: owning

Linux.file_owner is not used by any other function, so remove it. Linux.is_file_owned is only used when removing kmod-xenpv on old RHEL releases, and so is only required to work for RPM. The old file_owner/is_file_owned functions were completely broken. This replaces them with a simpler, working implementation that only covers the narrow use case of removing kmod-xenpv non-owned directories.

...ing wrong. This is part of my model: > resultt1 Logistic Regression Model lrm(formula = typemort ~ adv_binc_ratio + agem1 + regEA + regEM + regGL + regN + regNI + regNW + regS + regSW + regW + regWM + regY + repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning + adv_binc_ratio * (repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning) + agem1 * (repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning), data = a) This is part of my result: > summary(resultt1,adv_binc_ratio=mean(a$adv_binc_rati...

All; I have a customer who is looking for a particular DID. (I dialed it and it is not in service). I searched through my preferred upstream provider's list but I came up empty. I wrote them, and this is their reply. "We currently do not have that specific number in stock as this number is owned by another carrier that we do not have a business relationship with." So my

Guys recently I had this question asked in a technical interview. How do I find out the package owning a particular file, when no package managers are installed? I am assuimg SRPMs are used to install the software? Is this actually possible? Install the Linux OS without a package manager? I know "rpm -qf filename" gives the package owning the file. But how to get the package name when...

Hi there, I just found that if an user is assigned in the "admin users", and if the user grab a file from window to samba share, the file will be owned by root from unix view. I am believing this is a bug. The samba version I am using is 2.2.4. Weixing Hao (631) 858-6341 Forest Labs -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

Hi I am replacing my current mail system, using Exim/Postgres/WU-IMAP to another host using Dovecot. Everything has gone well, until I have tried to access some test mails via POP. The error message I am getting is Feb 14 03:03:57 wpc1273 pop3(simonw at orion-w-t.co.uk): lstat (/home/dovecot/users/orion-w-t.co.uk/simonw/cur) failed: Permission denied Feb 14 03:03:57 wpc1273 pop3(simonw at

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > On 18/07/2014 02:21, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> Are people OK with/prefer the use of owning smart pointers in APIs? > > > I think smart pointers are great to use for storage, or as struct members > where there's actually a clear need for ownership. Just by virtue of getting > rid of destructors containing single delete expressions this is already a > win. Great! &g...

...wrapped pointer after the ownership is transferred. > To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed for > local-scope usage only. > > > I'm still concerned this isn't the right direction, and that we > instead want a more formal "maybe owning pointer". The specific > use case you've designed for here, in my experience, doesn't seem > to come up often enough to justify a custom ADT - but the more > general tool of sometimes-owning smart pointer seems common enough > (& problematic enough) to w...

Hi, We are running a cluster under CentOS 6.6. We recently attached a new NAS device, running CentOS 6.8 and rsync'd our user file system to it. We noticed that all the files were owned by nobody (with nobody as the group). We copied over the /etc/passwd and /etc/group files from our front-end server to our NAS server. If we log in to the NAS server we see the files owned by their

Hello, It seems that a non-root user is able to copy root owned files. By that I mean a file that has "400" permission, for example. rsync <server_host_name>::base_image/etc/<root_owned_file> . The "rsyncd.conf" file has "uid=root" and "gid=root". What options do I need to use so that root can copy root owned files, but non-root users cannot

Hi, I have managed to set up a 'maildir' based mail system using fetchmail and procmail that delivers sorted mail to folders /var/spool/mail/user1, ../user2 etc. 'user1', 'user2' etc. are real users but the mail system is run under logged in user 'mailserver'. The mail folders are owned by 'user1', 'user2' etc. but mail files, when delivered, are

I have just managed to get my first Samba/LDAP PDC up and running. But I have one big security problem -- users logging in to the PDC using ssh can access all shares. User credentials, both for ssh login and for Samba access, are retrieved from the LDAP directory. All shares are stored in the /var/lib/samba directory. The directories permissions look like this: drwxrwx--- 2 root Domain

Hi All, Is anyone versed in Zimbra? I have most things working except some MTA issue. I tried posting on the Zimbra forums after reading the docs, but my post was labeled as SPAM and the moderators have not replied to my private message to get my post reviewed. Who uses this type of method for getting help anyway? Aren't the days of Bulletin Board BBS's gone? Anyway... I installed ZCS

Under "ChrootDirectory" there is a line that says, "This path, and all its components, must be root-owned directories that are not writable by any other user or group." When I first read this "all its components" seemed to mean that all directories and files within this directory must be root owned and root only writable. This seemed odd as I would not be able to

...and what permissions should they have. I am thinking of /var/run/dovecot and the index directory. What ownership, group and permissions should they be? Are there any other files/dirs created for dovecot alone (not the mail folders and INBOXes); if so, how should they be owned and permed? I had thought they were to be owned by dovecot, but it turns out that they should not -- ====

In an effort to set up a system-wide wine folder, I have moved mine to /var/wine, set WINEPREFIX to /var/wine for all users, and changed the permissions for /var/wine and it's contents to root:wine rwxr-xr-x. The wine registry and the savegame directories for my games have g+w as well. I am a member of the wine group. When I attempt to run wine, I get the error message "wine: /var/wine

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:56 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > Other IR objects (like instructions) have very simple ownership. An > instruction is owned by its basic block, a bb is owned by the function, a > function is owned by thet module. If an instruction is initially allocated with its Instruction *insertAtEnd parameter defaulted to null, and then later appended to a BasicBlock,

...is transferred. >>>> To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed for local-scope >>>> usage only. >>>> >>> >>> I'm still concerned this isn't the right direction, and that we >>> instead want a more formal "maybe owning pointer". The specific use case >>> you've designed for here, in my experience, doesn't seem to come up often >>> enough to justify a custom ADT - but the more general tool of >>> sometimes-owning smart pointer seems common enough (& problematic enough) &...

...e_ptr is an ability to access the wrapped > pointer after the ownership is transferred. > To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed for local-scope > usage only. > I'm still concerned this isn't the right direction, and that we instead want a more formal "maybe owning pointer". The specific use case you've designed for here, in my experience, doesn't seem to come up often enough to justify a custom ADT - but the more general tool of sometimes-owning smart pointer seems common enough (& problematic enough) to warrant a generic data structure (and...

Hi, I would like to make it impossible for users to change the contents of the authorized_keys-file. I just found out about the sshd_config setting: AuthorizedKeysFile /etc/ssh/authorized_keys/%u But even in that case that file has to be owned by the user, unless I set ``StrictModes no'' which would allow other nastyness. I would like to request that that file could also be owned by