4 ms·

Here's the documentation for systemd-random-seed: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-random-seed.service.html https://www.freedesktop.org/

Here's the documentation for systemd-random-seed: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-random-seed.service.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-ran... What are the command-line options that are available to that tool? Without looking in the source code. >Note that I'm a fan, but far from an apologist. An apologist is merely someone who offers a defense of something. It comes from the greek word ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense". Thus you are an apologist, even though you're not dogmatic.

SEJeff 11y ago
Ok I'll give you that. Also up vote for the pedantic retort. Well written, and I don't know Greek, so I learned something new. Look at the docs for something like systemd-service or -exec or -tmpfiles, etc. You found one that as bad. I'm sure you can find a few more. Now find docs for some random 1000 line shell scripts that aren't the code. At least there is a very obvious and consistent way to set the ulimit for my services, even if they don't support pam_limits via systemd, or an obvious way to extend the start script without hacking up the init file, etc. Please allow me to rephrase and say the documentation overall is so far ahead of th documentation for any implementation of init scripts and sysvinit it isn't funny. And this is coming from someone who spent most of his career as a UNIX / Linux SysAdmin.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Also up vote for the pedantic retort. Nah, it wasn't meant as a retort. It was merely an aside that I thought you might find interesting. And apparently you did :)
kbenson 11y ago
> What are the command-line options that are available to that tool? Without looking in the source code. While not the greatest example of documentation, it's not completely horrible. It accepts a single parameter which is the seed (yes, I looked at the source). I imagine it was an oversight for a very simple program with a singular purpose and which isn't meant to be called manually. It's not great, but it doesn't carry the same weight with me as if there were multiple possible or required arguments, or even a single optional one. Perhaps there are examples like that, I don't know. It's hard for me to get worked up about the level of documentation of systemd compared to SysVinit, when things like OpenBSD exist that achieve such a high level of quality that they are both utterly shamed, and appear relatively similar in their mediocrity.
- reddytowns 11y ago
  Accepting something as cryptographicly significant as a rng seed as a command line argument makes my security whiskers bristle. Especially since the ultimate destination for that value is a root owned 600 perm file.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    It doesn't do that, the gp post misread the source code. It reads the data from a file defined at compile time.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      As can be checked easily with `systemctl cat`: $ systemctl cat systemd-random-seed # /usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-random-seed.service [...] ExecStart=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-random-seed load ExecStop=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-random-seed save [...] Note how the executable is not even installed to /usr/bin, because it's explicitly not supposed to be called by a user.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Yes, I skimmed the file far too quickly. I was working off some assumptions from the portion I saw that errored if argc != 2, with an error along the lines of "There must be only one argument".
      - ktRolster 11y ago
        That's fine. Now try to do a retrospective to figure out how the mistake was made, so it doesn't happen again
        kbenson 11y ago
        > Now try to do a retrospective to figure out how the mistake was made, so it doesn't happen again What? It doesn't affect my point in any way. I looked at multiple other man pages for services before posting, and noted that of the ones I checked, they all listed options for the service and/or command. I stand by other other portion of my comment (whether you interpreted them as I meant, or in some more negative light that might induce the negativity I feel from this reply). I noted my reasoning on why I didn't find your example entirely compelling, but also noted that there could well be other examples that fit the criteria of what I considered more problematic. I still believe the man pages are lacking quite a bit with respect to OpenBSD equivalents.
JdeBP 11y ago
Note that it's not just systemd that has mystery programs. * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13566 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13566 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13565 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13565 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13564 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13564 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13563 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13563 On the subject of systemd doco: * http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/sy...
Grishnakh 11y ago
>It comes from the greek word ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense". I just want to point out here that just because an English word comes from some Greek word, that doesn't mean the English word actually means that today. You are correct about "apologist" (according to Wiktionary at any rate), it just means someone who speaks in defense of something, but there are other words where the meaning has changed over time. English is a language that is defined by its popular usage, and this can change over time so a word may not mean the same thing today as it did just 100 years ago. A good example is the word "pathetic". According to Wiktionary, it comes from Greek: 'παθητικός ‎(pathētikós, “subject to feeling, capable of feeling, impassioned”), from παθητός ‎(pathētós, “one who has suffered, subject to suffering”), from πάσχω ‎(páskhō, “to suffer”).' Obviously, those don't bear that much resemblance to the current popular meaning, which is: '1.Arousing pity, sympathy, or compassion.' or '2.Arousing scornful pity or contempt, often due to miserable inadequacy.' In fact, other European languages like German have this same word (I believe this is called a "cognate"; I am not a linguist), from the same root, but their meaning is entirely different and they get confused when they learn English and encounter this word since we use it in such a different manner. TL;DR: Greek or Latin roots are interesting from a historical and linguistic perspective, but they're no guarantee of the current definition of an English word.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Indeed, the word apologize actually does mean apologize
- tremon 11y ago
  I believe this is called a "cognate" A cognate is simply a pair of words from the same stem (origin); it doesn't matter if their meaning is still the same. The opposite term is "false cognate", which refers to words that sound alike and mean something similar but stem from different roots. Regardless of origin (so cognate or not), if two words in different languages sound alike but have different meaning, they're called false friends. </pedant>

SEJeff 11y ago

Ok I'll give you that. Also up vote for the pedantic retort. Well written, and I don't know Greek, so I learned something new. Look at the docs for something like systemd-service or -exec or -tmpfiles, etc. You found one that as bad. I'm sure you can find a few more. Now find docs for some random 1000 line shell scripts that aren't the code. At least there is a very obvious and consistent way to set the ulimit for my services, even if they don't support pam_limits via systemd, or an obvious way to extend the start script without hacking up the init file, etc. Please allow me to rephrase and say the documentation overall is so far ahead of th documentation for any implementation of init scripts and sysvinit it isn't funny. And this is coming from someone who spent most of his career as a UNIX / Linux SysAdmin.

ktRolster 11y ago
Also up vote for the pedantic retort. Nah, it wasn't meant as a retort. It was merely an aside that I thought you might find interesting. And apparently you did :)

kbenson 11y ago

> What are the command-line options that are available to that tool? Without looking in the source code. While not the greatest example of documentation, it's not completely horrible. It accepts a single parameter which is the seed (yes, I looked at the source). I imagine it was an oversight for a very simple program with a singular purpose and which isn't meant to be called manually. It's not great, but it doesn't carry the same weight with me as if there were multiple possible or required arguments, or even a single optional one. Perhaps there are examples like that, I don't know. It's hard for me to get worked up about the level of documentation of systemd compared to SysVinit, when things like OpenBSD exist that achieve such a high level of quality that they are both utterly shamed, and appear relatively similar in their mediocrity.

reddytowns 11y ago
Accepting something as cryptographicly significant as a rng seed as a command line argument makes my security whiskers bristle. Especially since the ultimate destination for that value is a root owned 600 perm file.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  It doesn't do that, the gp post misread the source code. It reads the data from a file defined at compile time.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    As can be checked easily with `systemctl cat`: $ systemctl cat systemd-random-seed # /usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-random-seed.service [...] ExecStart=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-random-seed load ExecStop=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-random-seed save [...] Note how the executable is not even installed to /usr/bin, because it's explicitly not supposed to be called by a user.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Yes, I skimmed the file far too quickly. I was working off some assumptions from the portion I saw that errored if argc != 2, with an error along the lines of "There must be only one argument".
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      That's fine. Now try to do a retrospective to figure out how the mistake was made, so it doesn't happen again
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > Now try to do a retrospective to figure out how the mistake was made, so it doesn't happen again What? It doesn't affect my point in any way. I looked at multiple other man pages for services before posting, and noted that of the ones I checked, they all listed options for the service and/or command. I stand by other other portion of my comment (whether you interpreted them as I meant, or in some more negative light that might induce the negativity I feel from this reply). I noted my reasoning on why I didn't find your example entirely compelling, but also noted that there could well be other examples that fit the criteria of what I considered more problematic. I still believe the man pages are lacking quite a bit with respect to OpenBSD equivalents.

JdeBP 11y ago

Note that it's not just systemd that has mystery programs. * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13566 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13566 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13565 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13565 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13564 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13564 * https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13563 https://bugs.pcbsd.org/issues/13563 On the subject of systemd doco: * http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/sy...

Grishnakh 11y ago

>It comes from the greek word ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense". I just want to point out here that just because an English word comes from some Greek word, that doesn't mean the English word actually means that today. You are correct about "apologist" (according to Wiktionary at any rate), it just means someone who speaks in defense of something, but there are other words where the meaning has changed over time. English is a language that is defined by its popular usage, and this can change over time so a word may not mean the same thing today as it did just 100 years ago. A good example is the word "pathetic". According to Wiktionary, it comes from Greek: 'παθητικός ‎(pathētikós, “subject to feeling, capable of feeling, impassioned”), from παθητός ‎(pathētós, “one who has suffered, subject to suffering”), from πάσχω ‎(páskhō, “to suffer”).' Obviously, those don't bear that much resemblance to the current popular meaning, which is: '1.Arousing pity, sympathy, or compassion.' or '2.Arousing scornful pity or contempt, often due to miserable inadequacy.' In fact, other European languages like German have this same word (I believe this is called a "cognate"; I am not a linguist), from the same root, but their meaning is entirely different and they get confused when they learn English and encounter this word since we use it in such a different manner. TL;DR: Greek or Latin roots are interesting from a historical and linguistic perspective, but they're no guarantee of the current definition of an English word.

ktRolster 11y ago
Indeed, the word apologize actually does mean apologize
tremon 11y ago
I believe this is called a "cognate" A cognate is simply a pair of words from the same stem (origin); it doesn't matter if their meaning is still the same. The opposite term is "false cognate", which refers to words that sound alike and mean something similar but stem from different roots. Regardless of origin (so cognate or not), if two words in different languages sound alike but have different meaning, they're called false friends. </pedant>