How to save only on command?

What features/apps/bugfixes needed in a future Puppy
Message
Author
dult
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat 31 Aug 2013, 14:17

#16 Post by dult »

It's just a first line of defense. If someone wants to crack something, they will. Though for the most casual user, if he can't access in a jiffy it's not worth the trouble. He will just format the USB.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#17 Post by mikeb »

Ah ok... well as a first line of defense the odds are well in your favour that someone who finds your missing stick would not have a clue what to do with a save file or a bootable usb (the default on most machines is to boot the hard drive/floppy/cd)... ..indeed if the stick itself was formatted ext2 that would be another level of bafflement...windows would just give you the 'format now' dialog.... Oh and iirc windows will only see the first partition so a save on the second would not be seen either.
Now if some techie geek is after your millions then you are doomed......

A case of security by obscurity in this case

regards

mike

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#18 Post by sunburnt »

What Mike said...

Karl; Yes, unionfs was a mess, aufs is much better but horribly bloated.
I had a link to a great page about union file system problems that I can`t find.

The real focus is: If a union mount isn`t needed, then why have one at all.?

The developers are working on transparent mounts to replace union type.
I`ve said a number of times:
The mount command could do the job if it didn`t "opaquely" overlay it`s mounts.
Having the mounts be opaque so they cover up the lower ones isn`t very useful.
Better would be to have it behave either way, Opaque or Transparent stacking.

Now you still need copy on write and white out files... What a messy business.
.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#19 Post by mikeb »

.....mike looks around the thread for karl.......

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#20 Post by sunburnt »

The forum did it again, posted at the wrong thread..!

User avatar
Karl Godt
Posts: 4199
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2010, 13:52
Location: Kiel,Germany

#21 Post by Karl Godt »

....mike looks around the thread for karl.......
Hi Mike !

Hmmm ... that theme had been posted a lot of times , but not recently .

Basically the solution found by other members was to set the save interval to 0 in the eventmanager gui and add few lines into /etc/rc.d/rc.shutdown

to present a dialog asking to save session or not into the save file like :

Code: Select all

function_ask_to_save(){
dialog --yesno "Save the trash from /initrd/pup_rw into /initrd/pup_ro1?" 0 0
if [ "$?" = 0 ] ; then
:
else
unset PUPMODE
PUPMODE=5 
fi
}
And such function needs to be called somewhere at or before

#save session...
case $PUPMODE in
3) #PDEV1.
echo "Saving session to $PDEV1..." >/dev/console
/usr/sbin/snapmergepuppy /initrd/pup_ro1 /initrd/pup_rw
;;
[ .. ]
5) #v2.02 first boot.
echo "Session not saved" >/dev/console
sync
#ha ha, before had this, if aborted save after choosing save-partition, code
#further down wiped all of the partition (it was mntd on /tmp/savepup)...
[ ! "$SMNTPT" = "" ] && umount $SMNTPT
#...well, fixed it, changed mntpt so not in /tmp. Leave above line here.
;;
*)
echo "Session not saved" >/dev/console
sleep 2
;;
esac

or probably in every PUPMODE case .. in rc.shutdown .

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#22 Post by mikeb »

Hi karl
The day I removed snapmergepuppy was a happy one.
It does not really do the job that well and IIRC never got to do a proper ram flush either. pupmode=13 is a distant memory.

mike

Post Reply