<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFCCFF">
<font size="+2"><font face="Tahoma">Hi LUGers,<br>
</font></font><font face="Tahoma"> Some live distros use it and
there I have had <br>
no problems.<br>
</font> But for this user I am very happy that PCLinuxOS64 is
free of systemd<font face="Tahoma"><b>,<br>
</b></font>and I had problems on another system that used
systemd<font face="Tahoma"><b>,</b> but that<br>
was installed to my hard drive. Maybe someday I will have to use
it and<br>
by that time i hope it has been properly debugged.<br>
So the answer for me is like that of Michael, yes and no.<br>
bliss<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/10/19 8:01 PM, Michael Paoli
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190110200152.14772ir80owwgcu8@webmail.rawbw.com">P.S.
<br>
<br>
This might also leave some wondering if I run systemd.
<br>
The answer is: Yes, and no. Or much more specifically:
<br>
On some hosts: Yes
<br>
On some hosts: ABSOLUTELY HELL F*CKIN' NO DAMN WAY!
<br>
It's good to have choices. Even better within the same distro
(Debian!).
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">From: "Michael Paoli"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu"><Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu></a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [sf-lug] systemd memory corruption...
<br>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:53:29 -0800
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">From: "Bobbie Sellers"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com"><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com></a>
<br>
Subject: [sf-lug] systemd memory corruption...
<br>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:41:09 -0800
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Not necessary but present in some
systems.
<br>
Read about it below.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/linux-systemd-affected-by-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities-no-patches-yet/"><https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/linux-systemd-affected-by-memory-corruption-vulnerabilities-no-patches-yet/></a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sounds like bug / security vulnerabilities in systemd ... at
least one of
<br>
which is network exploitable (whee!). Yep, make systemd
permeate
<br>
everything, always running with all privileges, that way if
there's a
<br>
bug most anywhere, why let it be a mere bug when we can have it
<br>
instead be a remote root exploit! Uhm, yeah, about that ...
<br>
<br>
Interesting bit though, ... you know, kernel updates,
<br>
need to reboot to get the benefits (e.g. security fixes) of the
<br>
new kernel, ... same for the init system, ... right? ... right?
<br>
<br>
Well, for better and/or worse, systemd has a neat trick it can
do.
<br>
I can replace itself while it's running ... so yes, one can
patch/upgrade
<br>
the systemd init system(!) while it's running, and reap at least
some of
<br>
those benefits (maybe all of them - depending how fully it
replaces any
<br>
and all pieces that were running or still resident anywhere in
RAM for
<br>
such, etc.).
<br>
<br>
The first time I learned of this ... uhm, yeah, ... a very ugly
mess had
<br>
systemd created in its overzealous attempt at such. See, I was
running
<br>
Debian stable (or at least it was the stable then), had fairly
recently
<br>
upgraded to stable. But systemd had given me lots of grief, so
I was like
<br>
screw that, boot ye olde init system (still all there). That
was all fine
<br>
and dandy until ... regular security, etc. updates. Included
update(s)
<br>
to systemd. Well, even though the running init system wasn't
systemd,
<br>
systemd, in its overzealous stupidity, in having its software
updated,
<br>
would go and replace the running init (PID 1) with itself ...
and most
<br>
unfortunately, it didn't even bother to check what init system
was
<br>
currently running. So, ... I had a host running sysvinit, where
<br>
upgrade of a systemd package caused it to have the unconcerned
brazenness
<br>
to replace the running PID 1 without bothering to even determine
if it
<br>
was systemd. Of course once that happened all hell broke loose
immediately.
<br>
Yes, that earned systemd a much more disabled configuration - so
it would
<br>
not make such stupid presumptions again ... nor would it have
enough
<br>
presence or power to even successfully make any such overbearing
attempt.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>