Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Devon

Pages: [1] 2 3
Programming / Re: OS/2 kernel requiring speculative execution patch!!!!
« on: January 07, 2018, 10:47:54 am »
#1 you're using Windows instead of Linux (NT kernel is worse at handling this than the Linux kernel)

Where do you get that info from?

I'm honestly surprised at how pro-Windows people are in this day and age when Windows was traditionally derided for being an unstable bucket of frogs (which it still is).

One of the main reasons is that the KTPI fix implemented on Linux does not require PCID, which means performance won't hit pre-westmere CPUs that much. But not only that the way Windows has to work around the problem is a lot more messy due to the way Windows has everything in paged and non-paged pools--whereas this is not the case in Linux or any Unix for that matter because they're not dementedly designed like NT. Just google it, there's sources out there.

Programming / Re: OS/2 kernel requiring speculative execution patch!!!!
« on: January 07, 2018, 02:27:17 am »
Yea, my understanding is that the way OS/2 manages its memory, getting access to kernel memory isn't that big of a deal as we don't have permissions or sandboxes so just need to read a different tabs memory or even the swap file if one exists.
As for the code, it seems to have to be tight assembler, which, as you say, has to target OS/2 and be delivered.
There is a proof of concept using Chromes JavaScript JIT but even that would have to be targeted as there are many code paths in the JIT depending on CPU etc.
The real problem is in data centres and such as this allows escaping from a virtual machine or/and getting roots password.

I'd need to see citations or a source test to confirm, because as far as I can tell, it is exploitable on x86 on any OS.

This link has a rather frightening graphic from Epic Games that shows the performance hit for their servers after a patch had been applied

Performance will be reduced under the following conditions:
#1 you're using Windows instead of Linux (NT kernel is worse at handling this than the Linux kernel)
#2 your CPUs lack PCID

So it's possible epicmegagames is running NT on pre-westmere CPUs.

Programming / Re: OS/2 kernel requiring speculative execution patch!!!!
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:34:42 am »
We'll have to wait for the embargo on how this works exactly to end, which is supposed to be soon. There are a lot of unknowns, which CPU's exactly, I heard all produced in the last 10 years. Is it just in 64 bit mode? And such.
Speculative execution was introduced on i686, so anything Pentium 2 and onward basically, is affected. It is not just 64-bit as 32-bit Linux is affected as well.

I can't talk for Arca Noae, but I doubt that they're capable of patching this, it's not like they have the kernels source. The OS4 kernel could be patched.

Then OS/2 is should only be ran on AMD processors if it's being exposed to the internet (which is a problem for me since my ThinkPads are Intel that support stuff in OS/2 I use). This is a pretty big problem.

Anyways, in many ways our platform is insecure to begin with. We're always at least a year behind in browsers, which means security holes and the possibility that one tab is spying on another. Things aren't sandboxed, especially the browser, which is our biggest security hole.
On the other hand, I doubt that many people will be writing code to use against the few OS/2 users, there are much better targets. The NSA may be able to log into the Intel management engine or the AMD equivalent and basically run software at ring -1 with complete access to the computer and sooner or later someone else is going to use the same backdoor.
There's also the question of whether this flaw really affects OS/2 as I believe the kernel memory runs in a separate segment, something that is not supported by 64bit mode and I believe gives some protection.
If it affects x86 Linux (which it does) it will sadly affect OS/2. It's not necessarily a problem regarding the NSA or spying (esp. since all of the old CPUs I run OS/2 on don't even have the intel management engine) but the fact that exploitable javascript could steal credentials or your credit card number--and things like that. Which again... means OS/2 on intel won't be viable for anything on the internet anymore, unless someone patches the OS/2 kernel.

Programming / OS/2 kernel requiring speculative execution patch!!!!
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:01:41 am »
So I'm sure many are aware of the news regarding the flaw in Intel's speculative execution in the majority of the CPUs:

The problem doesn't end there, it affects anything i686 and newer (as this was when speculative execution was introduced):

Which means, anything Pentium II and newer is affected.

Will ArcaNoae be working on patching the OS/2 kernel with KPTI? Otherwise I won't be able to consider OS/2 a viable OS for going on the internet anymore for anything personal.

Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: December 18, 2017, 02:40:42 am »
People are valuable.  Special.  Worth investing the time of an explanation, rather than just a response.  There's no justification for being harshly insulting, vulgar, obscene, etc.

Alan Cox is simply wrong in that regard, and so is Linus.  Alan is essentially an enabler for bad behavior.

I don't view it as negative, but necessary.  We must be lifted out of the muck of sin and sin's impact upon this world.  We must make conscious, purposeful choices to reject things that stem from our sin condition, and seek after that which does not have sin.  Only then are we able to proceed correctly, seeking no longer to satiate or serve our sin-tendancies (profanity, yelling, and doing sinful things), and instead we consciously place emphasis on not being that way, but instead looking up to the Lord, looking within to gain an understanding, and then walking forward and teaching others that our limits as men and women (in and of sin) can be overcome, but not just by us alone, but in looking up first, because then He/His teachings move to the front to naturally guide us in a new way.

I do not want to work on this project alone.  I'm 48 years old.  All things being equal people in my family live into their mid-70s.  That gives me 22+ years left to do what I want to change, affect, and impact this world.  I have an interest in OS development, so I apply it where I can, building a foundation on the Lord, and moving up from there so all will be solid, and have right goals and intents.

My hope is others will see the progress being made, and come forward to give the best of what they have to the Lord, through not only this project, but also the other things in their lives.

Bottom line:  I care about you.  I care about people.  That caring comes from the inside and the caring the Lord first had for each of you, and has given me.  It is real, deep, and guides me to invest so much labor into this project.  I want you to have a full open source Public Domain license operating system so you can use it, or use its dedign or code as a base for doing more.

I want to empower you to be un-debted owners free and clear of entanglements, and not renters.  I want to help you with real growth and prosperity to achieve all your life goals.

Sure, people are special (1 John 2:2), but that's a separate issue when it comes to operating systems. Linus Torvalds cares deeply about technology and exemplifies a strict standard of quality. There's a lot of people who are involved in coding nowadays that need a bit of a "wake up", and talking sweet words isn't going to convey this.

In fact... if you want to get 'Biblically' involved there's a PERFECT analogy in Matthew 12:34. Christ called out the religious pharisees for their crap (who by the way were trying to be mindful of their speech) re: "vipers" which is no different from Linus' profanities. If Christ were to sweet talk them, they just wouldn't get it. And most of them still didn't after all of that...

Being legalistic and fixating on sin just makes you a pharisee who alienates other people and walks with two left feet in society. Everyone will always sin (1 John 1:9), so move on. Forcefully making yourself "not sin" misses the point as you try to enable yourself through human good, which God isn't a fan of by the way (Romans 4:5-6). So then it becomes a matter of hyperventilating on emotion and misconstruing everything as "sinful". Don't hypnotize yourself into an emotional frenzy or see everything as sinful.

There's NOTHING wrong with Linux, and claiming God is against it is a tough order that I can easily refute (along with works salvation and sinless perfection). But that's getting highly off topic and not relevant to a forum dedicated to OS/2.

You're just shooting yourself in the foot--twice... in terms of not getting Bible Doctrine and fixating on a "sin" tangent, and arrogantly rejecting community resources to create an ASTRONOMICAL amount of overhead.

Setup & Installation / Re: How to - Install Fonts on OS/2
« on: December 16, 2017, 12:31:07 pm »
The problem reported seems to be in Windows (win32k.sys) handling of TTF files with a malformed/corrupted OS/2 table (an internal structure of the font file intended for use under OS/2). I would think Windos should ignore that, but hey... OTOH a TTF file with a corrupt OS/2 table is likely to not work, or stir trouble, depending on how well your OS/2 TTF driver (IIRC truetype.dll or freetype.dll) handles the corrupt data.

Nope, the "OS/2" Font Table was consolidated to work with both Windows and OS/2, and to this day is still used under Windows (I was not joking when I said the OS/2 font table is still present under Windows 7 and 10):

Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: December 16, 2017, 12:19:18 pm »
When I look at Linux I see Linus Torvalds, who is by all accounts a vile, crass, mean, spiteful, insulting, profane individual who thinks nothing of giving people the finger on camera, or using all manner of profane words to yell at people online.  And when I look at GNU I see Richard Stallman, who is by all accounts, a complete pervert who believes that pedophilia and necrophilia should be legalized, among many other odd things.

I don't really think it's about a matter of emotion. Alan Cox has explained many times how Linus' responses are justified.... it's Linus' job to get the point across. Sometimes you can't reason with people, so he has to wake them up and explain the situation in a more brash way.

With a negative attitude like that towards everything, you're just going to shoot yourself in the foot as it's going to take an insane amount of time to code everything from scratch for one person (would 20 years be a gentle assumption?) That's why few projects build everything from scratch when there's already Linux.

Applications / changing ArcaOS boot screen
« on: December 03, 2017, 11:18:34 pm »
I wanted to change the ArcaOS boot screen to this cleaned up OS/2 boot screen that I made:

However I don't have MAKELOGO, is there an easier way to convert this to the appropriate format?


Polls / Re: Compatibility with OS/2
« on: December 03, 2017, 11:13:55 pm »
I think just making a Linux distribution that mimics OS/2-like functionality in its graphical interface would be more ideal (and maybe a compatibility layer to run 32-bit OS/2 applications could be added in). Otherwise you're perpetually dealing with licensing problems, old closed source code and the inability to easily harness new hardware.

You could call it 'Warp/ix' and then be done with it.

General Discussion / Re: Arca Noae Website
« on: November 01, 2017, 03:40:14 pm »
So I have a complaint on the ArcaNoae website, too. After getting an email notification that my license (for Arca OS) needed to be renewed, the redirect link took a long time and then eventually failed.

Not sure I'd trust OS/2 running a website for security--because a lot of the (older) ported packages like apache or php have serious vulnerabilities.

Setup & Installation / Re: How to - Install Fonts on OS/2
« on: October 28, 2017, 10:59:44 am »
Use the font palette.
Unfortunately the font palette also requires you to have the ability to drag and drop. But after going through ArcaOS documentation in the OS/2 help file, they changed the drag to the right button instead of the left...

Strangely enough dragging an icon into the font palette in ArcaOS does nothing, but fortunately dragging it into the original font view does install it.

I opened up the font and it does nothing to OS/2, so it's exclusive to Microsoft's "OS/2 font table" that's still a part of Windows.

Setup & Installation / Re: How to - Install Fonts on OS/2
« on: October 27, 2017, 01:44:06 pm »
Unfortunately copying the fonts to C:\PSFONTS (which is what I did last time) doesn't seem to allow the fonts to appear in the font viewer. Doesn't matter how many I copy, still shows 109 in the 'Fonts' viewer folder.

I can't drag and drop any files as this setting is disabled by default on ArcaOS (unlike OS/2 Warp), and any changes to the mouse settings don't seem restore it.

General Discussion / Re: OS/2 history
« on: October 26, 2017, 10:48:10 am »
If that information had been made public, I think many ISVs would've come together and figured out a way to fund that cost to obtain the code base.

Some critical portions of the OS/2 source code are missing anyways, so it wouldn't matter now.

Setup & Installation / How to - Install Fonts on OS/2
« on: October 26, 2017, 10:44:43 am »
So I tried installing a font to OS/2 (ArcaOS) by copying it into the main font directory, and while it did copy over--the font viewer still only shows 109 fonts, and I can't use it or view it in the font viewer.

I just want to run this vulnerability discovered in the OS/2 Table to see if it affects IBM's OS/2:

I've always maintained OS/2 is fairly secure (assuming you're not running insecure software on it), even though it's lacking ASLR and other things--but I am interested in seeing if there are vulnerabilities in the old system after all of these years.

General Discussion / Re: OS/2 history
« on: October 23, 2017, 08:40:34 pm »
He says he worked at IBM during the OS/2 years, and that Microsoft never actually stopped working on OS/2, but rather there was code in OS/2 that was licensed from Microsoft and IBM continued to pay Microsoft to develop it until IBM decided to pull the plug much later.  He says Microsoft didn't leave OS/2.

I would say that this is most likely incorrect for a few reasons (from what I've read and know), the first three that come to mind:

#1 OS/2 2.11 SMP was the work of one guy contracted by IBM non-MS:
Quote from: Brad Wardell
The email I received confirmed the rumor that OS/2 2.11 SMP was largely the work of 1 person who later left IBM.  Once that person left and IBM had gotten rid of most of the contractors at Boca Raton Fl (IBM decided to centralized PSP in Austin) the brain drain was so much that OS/2 would never get a client SMP version again.  OS/2’s kernal on a P-66 took 2 hours to compile.  OS/2 took about 40 minutes to compile on a 2 processor OS/2 2.11 SMP machine (4 P-66’s).  IBM would not allow OS/2 internal builds to use the SMP compile.  If each compile ate up over 2 hours, imagine how much better OS/2 Warp could have been if the engineers had had an extra hour and 80 minutes after each build to spend testing, fixing, adding, etc.?  The fact that OS/2 had an SMP version so early could have made a huge difference the high end market.  Unfortunately, IBM failed to capitalize on this and eventually Windows NT (which still can’t match OS/2 2.11’s SMP scalability) took over as the primary SMP client.  By the time IBM got around to showing how cool OS/2 SMP was, it was too late.

#2 Microsoft never wanted to help IBM with OS/2 (as that would just sign their own destruction) and instead were just 'riding the bear', and also severely disagreed with IBM's payment model / I severely doubt they would continue to code OS/2 when they didn't agree with the payment model nor wanted to sign their own destruction:
Quote from: Steve Ballmer
It was just part of, as we used to call it, the time riding the bear. You just had to try to stay on the bear's back and the bear would twist and turn and try to buck you and throw you, but darn, we were going to ride the bear because the bear was the biggest, the most important you just had to be with the bear, otherwise you would be under the bear in the computer industry, and IBM was the bear, and we were going to ride the back of the bear.

In IBM there's a religion in software that says you have to count K-LOCs, and a K-LOC is a thousand line of code. How big a project is it? Oh, it's sort of a 10K-LOC project. This is a 20K-LOCer. And this is 50K-LOCs. And IBM wanted to sort of make it the religion about how we got paid. How much money we made off OS/2, how much they did. How many K-LOCs did you do? And we kept trying to convince them - hey, if we have - a developer's got a good idea and he can get something done in 4K-LOCs instead of 20K-LOCs, should we make less money? Because he's made something smaller and faster, less KLOC. K-LOCs, K-LOCs, that's the methodology. Ugh anyway, that always makes my back just crinkle up at the thought of the whole thing.

There's also the whole fact that IBM and MS had major disagreements with how it should have been designed. Which is why OS/2 is a far more stable and sanely programmed operating system than Windows. I won't go through all of the reasons why OS/2 had many things implemented ahead of the time by non-MS employees, but they are there. Microsoft only caught up with some of these much later on--and in many instances it was too late (which is why Windows' interface can't scale properly, whereas OS/2's can).

#3 OS/2 PPC was ported and developed internally at IBM and ate their budget for OS/2 as a whole (and is one of the main reasons why OS/2 was axed by IBM):
Quote from: Brad Wardell
I remember in 1997 when we were looking at the OS/2 revenue sales and realizing that NT 4.0 had killed OS/2.  When Windows NT 4.0 came out, that pretty much did in OS/2, people migrated from OS/2 to NT incredibly fast.  I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that about half of the active individual OS/2 user base switched from OS/2 to Windows NT 4.0 within 6 months of its introduction.  And IBM, unbeknownst to any of us, had decided to kill OS/2 before OS/2 Warp 4.  Warp 4 was in the pipeline already.  Gerstner, feeling betrayed by PSP (Personal System Products, a division of IBM) for the PowerPC debacle had ordered PSP eliminated and its assets split up amongst the other divisions, none of which particularly cared about OS/2. 

EDIT: I'd like to add that the elements that OS/2 shares (and doesn't share!) with Windows are quite fascinating. IBM wasn't oblivious as to what was worth keeping and what was utter garbage.

Pages: [1] 2 3