Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

9 participants
34745 discussions

weird wordpress/php/pecl/ssh problem
by John R Pierce 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

So I'm running a centos 6 server which among other things hosts a website using wordpress. I'm using php56u from IUS on C6's native apache, and pecl + ssh because php-ssh2 is kinda broken. I ran smack dab into this exact problem: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/39746 In my case, wordpress 4.7.6 auto updated, and I notied that 4.8.2 was available, so I chose my standard update method of ssh2.sftp via the web interface, and it errored "couldn't find wordpress directories". error_log showed a php error: PHP Warning: file_put_contents(ssh2.sftp://Resource id #834/.maintenance): failed to open stream ... this had worked for me for several years of updates prior to this. if I understand what that guy posted on the wordpress TRAC, there's an upstream error in php 5.6.29+ (I was on .30 and now .31) and pecl ssh2. the wordpress folks on that thread think that its a php ssh problem and don't want to address it, while the poster thinks they could easily work around it. now, I realize none of this is directly a centos problem as its the IUS (Rackspace?) version of php I'm running, and pecl is way out of your bounds, but I'm wondering. anyone here at all plugged into the pecl world and familiar with the ssh extension want to comment ? or am I way out of bounds. the wordpress folks I've talked with say just don't USE the ssh2.sftp update method, use FTP (ugh!) or use 'direct' (php directly writes the .php files to update the app, eek). they think I should contain php in php-fpm, something thing I've not looked at before. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

1 0

KeePassX replacement
by H 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

I have been using the KeePassX password manager on CentOS 6 and 7 for some time and it works pretty well. On my Windows machine I use KeePass which offers a number of features missing from KeePassX, I also sync the database between several machines, including Android units where I use keepass2android. Database compatibility is thus required. KeePassX, however, does not seem to be maintained any more, the last update was just a bit less than a year ago. It also has some annoying bugs, including where switching keyboards on the computer corrupts the username and the password if they include any character outside the ASCII range. There seems to be a community fork called KeePassXC and I would like to ask if anyone is using this password manager? It is not in EPEL, nor in any other standard repository, only through an unofficial repository at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bugzy/keepassxc/,

11 22

xfs not getting it right?
by hw 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Hi, xfs is supposed to detect the layout of a md-RAID devices when creating the file system, but it doesn´t seem to do that: # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md10 : active raid1 sde[1] sdd[0] 499976512 blocks super 1.2 [2/2] [UU] bitmap: 0/4 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk # mkfs.xfs /dev/md10p2 meta-data=/dev/md10p2 isize=512 agcount=4, agsize=30199892 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 = crc=1 finobt=0, sparse=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=120799568, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=58984, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 # mkfs.xfs -f -d su=64m,sw=2 /dev/md10p2 meta-data=/dev/md10p2 isize=512 agcount=16, agsize=7553024 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 = crc=1 finobt=0, sparse=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=120799568, imaxpct=25 = sunit=16384 swidth=32768 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=58984, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 The 64MB chunk size was picked my mdadm automatically. The device is made from two disks, and xfs either doesn´t figure that out, or it decided to ignore the layout of the underlying RAID. Am I doing something wrong here, or is xfs in Centos somehow different? Do, or must, we always specify the apporpriate values for su and sw or did xfs ignore them because what it picked is better?

5 8

Join us at CERN, October 20th, 2017
by Rich Bowen 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Please join us, one month from today, in Meyrin, Switzerland, at the amazing CERN facility, for a day of learning and sharing. http://cern.ch/centos Details, schedule, and registration are at the above link. While the event is free, you *must* register in order to gain access to the facility, due to security requirements. See you at CERN! -- Rich Bowen - rbowen(a)redhat.com RDO Community Liaison http://rdoproject.org @RDOCommunity

1 0

update to 7.4
by Jerry Geis 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

I was doing an update to 7.4 and somewhere in middle the machine died. If I drop back to a previous kernel the machine is alive. So how do I say "forget the previous yum update" and start all over and do it again. Booting into the new kernel I get a kernel fault. So going back one level on teh boot screen solves that - I just need to start the update again. How is that? Thanks, Jerry

6 8

glib update problems
by Jason Welsh 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

any idea how to get out of this pickle? [root@oem /home/jason]$yum update glibc Loaded plugins: product-id, rhnplugin, search-disabled-repos, security This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or Red Hat Satellite. Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package glibc.x86_64 0:2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 will be updated ---> Package glibc.x86_64 0:2.12-1.209.el6_9.2 will be an update --> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.2 for package: glibc-2.12-1.209.el6_9.2.x86_64 --> Running transaction check ---> Package glibc-common.x86_64 0:2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 will be updated --> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 for package: glibc-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.i686 ---> Package glibc-common.x86_64 0:2.12-1.209.el6_9.2 will be an update --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: glibc-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.i686 (@rhel-6-server-rpms) Requires: glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 Removing: glibc-common-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.x86_64 (@rhel-6-server-rpms) glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 Updated By: glibc-common-2.12-1.209.el6_9.2.x86_64 (rhel6xbase) glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.2 Available: glibc-common-2.12-1.166.el6_7.8.x86_64 (rhel6xupdates) glibc-common = 2.12-1.166.el6_7.8 ********************************************************************** yum can be configured to try to resolve such errors by temporarily enabling disabled repos and searching for missing dependencies. To enable this functionality please set 'notify_only=0' in /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/search-disabled-repos.conf ********************************************************************** Error: Package: glibc-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.i686 (@rhel-6-server-rpms) Requires: glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 Removing: glibc-common-2.12-1.209.el6_9.1.x86_64 (@rhel-6-server-rpms) glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.1 Updated By: glibc-common-2.12-1.209.el6_9.2.x86_64 (rhel6xbase) glibc-common = 2.12-1.209.el6_9.2 Available: glibc-common-2.12-1.166.el6_7.8.x86_64 (rhel6xupdates) glibc-common = 2.12-1.166.el6_7.8 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest [root@oem /home/jason]$ Jason --

4 4

Re: [CentOS] Block internet access for some users on the LAN ?
by James B. Byrne 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

On Monday, September 18, 2017 1:04 PM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote" > > This year the school's director wants to completely block Internet > access for all the student's personal devices. > The silent premise in this request is that all student Internet access occurs through the school's gateway. Which is of course false. If the objective is to prevent misuse of school resources for non-education purposes then the premise, while faulty, is fine. If the objective is to restrict students' Internet access in its entirety then this is doomed to fail. Have you clarified with the director that only access through your gateway can be affected by this policy and that student devices with cellular data plans will still have access? -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3

1 0

CentOS, PHP & OwnCloud/Nextcloud: the version dilemma
by Nicolas Kovacs 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Hi, I'm currently experimenting with OwnCloud and Nextcloud on a sandbox CentOS 7 server. I've been using OwnCloud for the last two years for my own purposes on a Slackware server, and I'm quite happy with it. In my humble opinion, every admin who wants to host OwnCloud or Nextcloud on a RHEL/CentOS server is confronted with a version dilemma. 1. CentOS 7 sports PHP 5.4, which has been officially EOL for quite some time, but Red Hat will provide security update backports until 2024. Which is fine. 2. Currently supported versions of Nextcloud (namely the 11.x and 12.x branch) require a minimum of PHP 5.6. Which seems reasonable. But if I pull in PHP 5.6 from Webtatic, for example, I only get the "official" PHP support, which will end in 2018 for the 5.6 branch. And no security backports. 3. The solution would be to go with Nextcloud 10, which only requires PHP 5.4, and which is also provided in package form by EPEL. 'yum info nextcloud' shows that the current EPEL version is 10.0.4... but a peek on the Nextcloud homepage shows me that this version is officially unsupported. Uh oh. 4. Some of the stuff I'm hosting on my CentOS 7 server (like CMSMS) is not compatible with PHP 7.x versions. So right now I don't see a solution for this. As far as I can see, the "least evil" solution would be to pull in PHP 5.6 from Webtatic and go for Nextcloud 11.x, and have an EOL for both around next summer. I'd be curious if some of you are familiar with this sort of dilemma (I guess so) and how you manage it. Cheers, Niki Kovacs -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info(a)microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32

13 20

Block internet access for some users on the LAN ?
by Nicolas Kovacs 19 Sep '17

19 Sep '17

Hi, In our local school we have two servers and roughly 80 clients. The network is 192.168.10.0/255.255.255.0, and DHCP+DNS is managed by Dnsmasq. School PCs (teachers and management) are registered via MAC address and get an IP address in a specific range: 192.168.10.2 - 192.168.10.50 - management + teachers 192.168.10.201 - 192.168.10.220 - computer room 192.168.10.246 - 192.168.10.247 - printers 192.168.10.251 - 192.168.10.253 - wireless access points If a client (like a student's laptop, tablet or smartphone) is not registered, it gets an IP address in the range between 192.168.10.100 and 192.168.10.200. Up until recently I've been using a combination of Squid and Squidguard to filter Internet access. This year the school's director wants to completely block Internet access for all the student's personal devices. The Linux server acts as a transparent gateway. Unfortunately with Squid I can only filter/block HTTP connections, but not HTTPS (well, I could, but this is way too complicated to setup). The firewall is managed by a simple Iptables script. Now I *think* the easiest way to block a certain IP range from Internet access would be through Iptables (correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case, what would that look like? Any suggestions? Niki Kovacs -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info(a)microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32

9 11

KVM SSL with wget
by MOKRANI Rachid 19 Sep '17

19 Sep '17

Hi, I installed KVM on a CentOS 7.4 host. The guest is also installed in CentOS 7.4, the network works perfectly. Both Host and Guest machines have the same OS. I do not understand why I have an SSL error on the guest and not on the host while the two computers have the same OS installation. The firewalld, selinux, fail2ban services are not installed on host and guest. Is there an extra manipulation that I have forgotten to do? Many thanks. Below my log on Host and Guest. Host /usr/bin/wget --version GNU Wget 1.14 built on linux-gnu. wget https://www.google.com --2017-09-19 16:15:44-- https://www.google.com/ Resolving www.google.com<http://www.google.com> (www.google.com<http://www.google.com>)... 2a00:1450:4009:809::2004, 216.58.198.164 Connecting to www.google.com<http://www.google.com> (www.google.com<http://www.google.com>)|2a00:1450:4009:809::2004|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=kCbBWe-fOMnU8gfBmLmABA [following] --2017-09-19 16:15:44-- https://www.google.fr/?gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=kCbBWe-fOMnU8gfBmLmABA Resolving www.google.fr<http://www.google.fr> (www.google.fr<http://www.google.fr>)... 2a00:1450:4009:814::2003, 216.58.204.3 Connecting to www.google.fr<http://www.google.fr> (www.google.fr<http://www.google.fr>)|2a00:1450:4009:814::2003|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: 'index.html.10' [ <=> ] 10,853 --.-K/s in 0s 2017-09-19 16:15:45 (41.9 MB/s) - 'index.html.10' saved [10853] Guest VM ping www.google.com<http://www.google.com> return OK /usr/bin/wget --version GNU Wget 1.14 built on linux-gnu. My Pb on the guest : wget https://www.google.com --2017-09-19 16:16:03-- https://www.google.com/ Resolving www.google.com<http://www.google.com> (www.google.com<http://www.google.com>)... 216.58.198.164, 2a00:1450:4009:809::2004 Connecting to www.google.com<http://www.google.com> (www.google.com<http://www.google.com>)|216.58.198.164|:443... connected. OpenSSL: error:1408D07B:SSL routines:ssl3_get_key_exchange:bad signature Unable to establish SSL connection. __________________________ Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement ! Please consider the environment before printing ! Ce message et toutes ses pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. IFP Energies nouvelles décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message. This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. IFP Energies nouvelles should not be liable for this message. __________________________

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss