hardware specification (implied marketing connotation/ opposed to a bootloader function related to a unique part)
hardware specification (implied marketing connotation/ opposed to a bootloader function related to a unique part)
Yeah, Graphene does updates, GP sandboxing, and direct configuration type stuff that is next level better than a typical swap ROM. The entire reason why Graphene uses the pixel is not because of the hardware but because of the (trusted protection module) TPM chip on pixels. It is the same chip as secure boot on a PC.
The basics of TPM is that it is like a microcontroller that generates and stores encryption keys. It can generate a key internally that can never be extracted or accessed through communication with the TPM chip. You can send it a hash to verify a match with a key it owns and it will verify any encryption. Graphene is using this feature to create keys and a secure system that can be verified and can get OTA updates all the time securely. You can use an old device to confirm that your device is secure too using a provided authorization app.
Custom ROMs often are terrible about security and how Android actually works. Things like adding root to a device or any of the packages that are capable of modifying the kernel are super sketchy dangerous. You’re a user just like every developer for every app you use on Android. This is how it just works while knowing about networking and securing an operating system is not required. The entire model is designed to fail safe. The moment you start changing packages available in the kernel there can be problems.
Graphene handles this by only giving root access over USB. Vanadium is also quite outstanding and far more than just a browser. At first you’re likely to try to use a ton of apps like you may be accustomed to doing. After a few years with Graphene, you are more likely to greatly limit your apps and only use vanadium for everything. With my setup on a 2 year old device, I still get over 2 whole days of battery life; nearly the same as when new. I’m not using anything from Google and have around a dozen apps total. I’m also primarily on a network that blocks all undesired connections on a whole different level than adblock.
No. AFAIK the primary issue is that microcode is not open
I’ve had this happen with AI stuff that runs in a Python venv. It only happens with apps that use multi threading, and usually when something is interrupted in an unintended or unaccounted for way. I usually see it when I start screwing with code stuff, but also from changing the softmax settings during generation or crashing other stuff while hacking around. There may be a bug of some kind, but I think it likely has more to do with killing the root threading process and leaving an abandoned child that doesn’t get handled by the kernel process scheduler in the standard way. If this happens I restart too.
No one has fully open source bios, not even S76 last I checked
Wow:
P.S. “Don’t feed the trolls”
Don’t you worry. Our friend here tried to reply to this message, he did so twice in fact with slightly different wording, but it was full of political rage and tu quoque so I assume he fell victim to the spam filter thanks to you special counter-baiting operation so to speak.
That aside, I did a very superficial search and it seems that the original author had already had a pull being rejected on the grounds it was coming straight from his Baikal credentials. It’s a real pity that an apparently very able engineer is just playing pretend despite knowing full well why is it so that LF migh not want to be associated with Baikal in any way.
Hello Linux-kernel community,
I am sure you have already heard the news caused by the recent Greg’ commit 6e90b675cf942e (“MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.”). As you may have noticed the change concerned some of the Ru-related developers removal from the list of the official kernel maintainers, including me.
The community members rightly noted that the quite short commit log contained very vague terms with no explicit change justification. No matter how hard I tried to get more details about the reason, alas the senior maintainer I was discussing the matter with haven’t given an explanation to what compliance requirements that was. I won’t cite the exact emails text since it was a private messaging, but the key words are “sanctions”, “sorry”, “nothing I can do”, “talk to your (company) lawyer”… I can’t say for all the guys affected by the change, but my work for the community has been purely volunteer for more than a year now (and less than half of it had been payable before that). For that reason I have no any (company) lawyer to talk to, and honestly after the way the patch has been merged in I don’t really want to now. Silently, behind everyone’s back, bypassing the standard patch-review process, with no affected developers/subsystem notified - it’s indeed the worse way to do what has been done. No gratitude, no credits to the developers for all these years of the devoted work for the community. No matter the reason of the situation but haven’t we deserved more than that? Adding to the GREDITS file at least, no?..
I can’t believe the kernel senior maintainers didn’t consider that the patch wouldn’t go unnoticed, and the situation might get out of control with unpredictable results for the community, if not straight away then in the middle or long term perspective. I am sure there have been plenty ways to solve the problem less harmfully, but they decided to take the easiest path. Alas what’s done is done. A bifurcation point slightly initiated a year ago has just been fully implemented. The reason of the situation is obviously in the political ground which in this case surely shatters a basement the community has been built on in the first place. If so then God knows what might be next (who else might be sanctioned…), but the implemented move clearly sends a bad signal to the Linux community new comers, to the already working volunteers and hobbyists like me.
Thus even if it was still possible for me to send patches or perform some reviews, after what has been done my motivation to do that as a volunteer has simply vanished. (I might be doing a commercial upstreaming in future though). But before saying goodbye I’d like to express my gratitude to all the community members I have been lucky to work with during all these years. Specifically:
NTB-folks, Jon, Dave, Allen. NTB was my starting point in the kernel upstream work. Thanks for the initial advices and despite of very-very-very tough reviews with several complete patchset refactorings, I learned a lot back then. That experience helped me afterwards. Thanks a lot for that. BTW since then I’ve got several thank-you letters for the IDT NTB and IDT EEPROM drivers. If not for you it wouldn’t have been possible.
Andy, it’s hard to remember who else would have given me more on my Linux kernel journey as you have. We first met in the I2C subsystem review of my DW I2C driver patches. Afterwards we’ve got to be frequently meeting here and there - GPIO, SPI, TTY, DMA, NET, etc, clean/fixes/features patch(set)s. Quite heat discussions in your first reviews drove me crazy really. But all the time we managed to come up with some consensus somehow. And you never quit the discussions calmly explaining your point over and over. You never refused to provide more detailed justification to your requests/comments even though you didn’t have to. Thanks to that I learned how to be patient to reviewers and reviewees. And of course thank you for the Linux-kernel knowledges and all the tips and tricks you shared.
- Andy, please note due to the situation I am not going to work on my DW DMAC fixes patchset anymore. So if you ever wish to have DW UART stably working with the DW DMA-engine driver, then feel free to pick the series up: Link: https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20240911184710.4207-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com/
Linus (Walleij), after you merged one of my pretty much heavy patchset in you suggested to me to continue the DW APB GPIO driver maintaining. It was a first time I was asked to maintain a not-my driver. Thank you for the trust. I’ll never forget that.
Mark, thank you very much for entrusting the DW APB SSI driver maintenance to me. I’ve put a lot of efforts into making it more generic and less errors-prune, especially when it comes working under a DMA-engine control or working in the mem-ops mode. I am sure the results have been beneficial to a lot of DW SPI-controller users since then.
Damien, our first and last meeting was at my generic AHCI-platform and DW AHCI SATA driver patches review. You didn’t make it a quick and easy path. But still all the reviews comments were purely on the technical basis, and the patches were eventually merged in. Thank you for your time and experience I’ve got from the reviews.
Paul, Thomas, Arnd, Jiaxun, we met several times in the mailing list during my MIPS P5600 patches and just generic MIPS patches review. It was always a pleasure to discuss the matters with such brilliant experts in the field. Alas I’ve spent too much time working on the patches for another subsystems and failed to submit all the MIPS-related bits. Sorry I didn’t keep my promise, but as you can see the circumstances have suddenly drawn its own deadline.
Bjorn, Mani, we were working quite a lot with you in the framework of the DW PCIe RC drivers. You reviewed my patches. I helped you to review another patches for some time. Despite of some arguing it was always a pleasure to work with you. Mani, special thanks for the cooperative DW eDMA driver maintenance. I think we were doing a great work together.
Paolo, Jakub, David, Andrew, Vladimir, Russell. The network subsystem and particularly the STMMAC driver (no doubt the driver sucks) have turned to be a kind of obstacle on which my current Linux-kernel activity has stopped. I really hope that at least in some way my help with the incoming STMMAC and DW XPCS patches reviews lightened up your maintainance duty. I know Russell might disagree, but I honestly think that all our discussions were useful after all, at least for me. I also think we did a great work working together with Russell on the DW GMAC/QoS ETH PCS patches. Hopefully you’ll find a time to finish it up after all.
Rob, Krzysztof, from your reviews I’ve learned a lot about the most hardwary part of the kernel - DT sources and DT-bindings. All your comments have been laconic and straight to the point. That made reviews quick and easy. Thank you very much for that.
Guenter, special thanks for reviewing and accepting my patches to the hwmon and watchdog subsystems. It was pleasure to be working with you.
Borislav, we disagreed and argued a lot. So my DW uMCTL2 DDRC EDAC patches even got stuck in limbo for quite a long time. Anyway thank you for the time you spent reviewing my patches and trying to explain your point.
- Borislav, it looks like I won’t be able to work on my Synopsys EDAC patchsets anymore. If you or somebody else could pick them up and finish up the work it would be great (you can find it in the lore archive). The patches convert the mainly Zynq(MP)-specific Synopsys EDAC driver to supporting the generic DW uMCTL2 DDRC. It would be very beneficial for each platform based on that controller.
Greg, we met several times in the mailing lists. You reviewed my patches sent for the USB and TTY subsystems, and all the time the process was straight, highly professional, and simpler than in the most of my other case. Thank you very much for that.
Yoshihiro, Keguang, Yanteng, Kory, Cai and everybody I was lucky to meet in the kernel mailing lists, but forgot to mention here. Thank you for the time spent for our cooperative work on making the Linux kernel better. It was a pleasure to meet you here.
I also wish to say huge thanks to the community members trying to defend the kicked off maintainers and for support you expressed in these days. It means a lot.
A little bit statics of my kernel-work at the end:
Signed-off patches: 518 Reviewed and Acked patches: 253 Tested patches: 80
…
Best Regards, -Serge(y)
Kreg moved to Europe, last I heard. So at least the heir apparent is in a region with better potential international diplomacy and neutrality.
That is what I meant by configure. You’re not going to HP to download your printer driver or realtek to get one for your network adaptor. To the end user, the kernel includes the required modules, or it is a matter of simple configurations. The exception being proprietary garbage. However with Nvidia on Fedora, it is a non issue as the Anaconda system builds the Nvidia module from source with every kernel update from outside of the kernel but under the shim, so even secure boot works.
The OP was not asking computer science OS 101. My reply is just intended as a surface level to cause them to question the drivers mentality. I’ve seen many people follow this logic and not get anywhere.
Indeed, gaps are present in my knowledge. I understand what you wrote, in theory, but vaguely based on my reading from a forum on kernel architectures several years ago. I’m most familiar with the user experience of configuring a custom Linux kernel with Gentoo versus needing a WiFi driver that I need WiFi access to source.
Since you are touching on a gap in my knowledge, perhaps a more recent issue and curiosity will help me ground this a little better if you do not mind responding. What is the deal with secure boot and Windows drivers? How are they able to run some random driver from the internet that has DMA?
Software neutrality in the entire public sector should be a law. Leverage of proprietary software and media like professor published book scams are criminal extortion.
That sounds like a hardware issue.
Keep in mind that Linux is a monolithic kernel. It doesn’t technically have drivers at all or go missing. All supporting kernel modules for hardware are always present at the configuration level. The general kernels shipped by distros are configured to work out of the box for most hardware. The only exceptions should be instances where oddball hardware can cause conflicts with the standard way other hardware works in the same space. Then there are cases where hardware is totally undocumented publicly by the chip manufacturers. That is the worst kind as some of those have poor or no support.
By contrast, Windows is a microkernel. It only creates an API layer for the hardware vendor to write a driver that interfaces with Windows. They leave it entirely up to the end user to get stuck in the middle, source and install the driver and deal with any potential issues. In other words they don’t have devs to maintain or do anything meaningful in this space, and they enable undocumented proprietary crap hardware.
Its like a less capable Emacs wannabe that is designed to frustrate you when nothing works in examples using proprietary crap in VS Code, then leverage your familiarity to get you to give in to using VS Code and its MASSIVE stalkerware stream of constant information across your network with no rhyme or reason for that traffic to exist.
Biometrics are passwords you can’t change. Depends on the implementation and hashing, but the digitization of your body is still just a complex number that maths through the ALU in a compare registers operation. That number can be replicated on some level, but you cannot change that number if it is lost.
(47m/8b) × 100 = 0.5875% of the world. Those numbers are likely total accounts as well and nowhere near the real active users. I bet many of these are also systems with multiple users or users with multiple accounts. Reported numbers are usually unverified and inflating them as much as possible is in the best interest of Sony on may fronts.
It is neither here nor there. I used to love the first few generations of PS stuff, but I really see no reason for consoles like these any more. I owned everything I played back then. I find it rather pathetic that my right to own has been stolen.
I’m presently taking a snack break from Cataclysm DDA after tracking down foods with better iron content in the game. Under that I have a bash script and Emacs running with my mods to the game. I’ve been playing all afternoon and making little odds and ends for the game. Sorry if my perspective from a non dystopian space rubs the wrong way. What I’m doing isn’t for everyone, but if everyone had some better self control and the character to stand up for themselves, you will find that you get your rights back from these asshats, or you will get them from the next generation of platforms that rise from the ashes. The only terms that actually matter are the ones you’re willing to put money into. I back up that statement. I’m on a 12th gen Intel with 16 GB GPU. I would be playing AAA titles but there are no game manufacturers. I don’t care if I’m the only person unwilling to adopt feudalism and serve some tyrant overlord on their yacht. So be it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That Python script is awesome. Thanks for sharing. I might try to add that to my LLM text post processor.
It is nice to make an AI assistant that is more conversational, but if it adds a single emoji, all bets are off. The LLM emoji cancer is terminal once started.
Yeah, read up on the Graphene webpage. I don’t use any of it, but there are options. You’re most likely to have issues with banking apps, from what I have seen. Anything that can’t be done in a browser is a stalkerware scam IMO. I consider them irrelevant if they lack this fundamental functionality.