exec on root parition?

Forum Forums New users New Users and General Questions exec on root parition?

  • This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated Sep 29-9:30 pm by PenguinGuy.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #67588
    Member
    PenguinGuy

    Is it normal to have the root partition mounted with exec?

    I just noticed it’s not mounted with it & I’m curious if this is causing problems or if it was autchanged like some of my other drivers seem to automount (SpaceFM?) without exec.

    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by PenguinGuy.
    #67590
    Member
    skidoo
    Helpful
    Up
    1

    skim the manpage for mount command and note the following implicit default options:
    rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, nouser, async, and relatime

    > it’s not mounted with it

    Unless noexec has been explicitly specified, the implicit default option value was applied.

    (consider: If the root partition had been mounted noexec, the system would not be able to perform /sbin/init …fall down, go BOOM)

    #67680
    Member
    PenguinGuy
    Helpful
    Up
    0

    Well, SpaceFM refused to mount my external partition with exec or allow me to setup NTFS-3G, so I used the disk manager tool in the Control Center. This apps seems better, but doesn’t list anything for the root partition.

    Asking because I”m still getting weird file permission issues from the other thread. Like Peazip claimed the 7z.dll it needs was missing, but it’s clearly there in the folder.

    Similarly, when I ran some Python scripts from a .sh they told me the commands in the folder don’t exist (yet it was clearly there) & I had to manually run it in the terminal (just copy & pasted the .sh).

    Do you know if it is possible to upgrade my Kernel to the latest stable without breaking antiX (maybe they have better driver support from my ssd)?

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by PenguinGuy.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by PenguinGuy.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by PenguinGuy.
    #67687
    Member
    skidoo
    Helpful
    Up
    0

    Same as I suggested minutes ago in your trashbin topic: I suggest that you at least skim, if not READ, the spaceFM User Manual.
    Understand that spaceFM is a file manager, it is not a mount manager. spaceFM relies on another program to handle any mount operations…

    > ran some Python scripts from a .sh they told me the commands in the folder don’t exist

    Check the python docs regarding PATH…

    > Do you know if it is possible to upgrade my Kernel to the latest stable without breaking Antix

    Pointless to wait for someone else to offer encouragement by stating (truthfully, yet non-definiitively) “yes, of course it’s possible”.
    You must try it (on your machine, with your ??? model SSD) to find out.

    #67690
    Member
    PenguinGuy
    Helpful
    Up
    0

    Same as I suggested minutes ago in your trashbin topic: I suggest that you at least skim, if not READ, the spaceFM User Manual.
    Understand that spaceFM is a file manager, it is not a mount manager. spaceFM relies on another program to handle any mount operations…

    You’re not understanding me. The mounting is clearly not the same.

    Check the python docs regarding PATH…

    It’s not a PATH issue.

    Pointless to wait for someone else to offer encouragement by stating (truthfully, yet non-definiitively) “yes, of course it’s possible”.
    You must try it (on your machine, with your ??? model SSD) to find out.

    I’m asking specifically of getting a Kernel that is not officially released with antiX (>5.10.57). Sure I could build my own distro if it required scripts or whatever to link it with the Kernel, but I”m asking how easy it is to just download & drop it in as it is now (I’m not trying to intentionally break my build).

    #67695
    Member
    Xecure
    Helpful
    Up
    1

    Do you know if it is possible to upgrade my Kernel to the latest stable without breaking antiX (maybe they have better driver support from my ssd)?

    You could install any liquorix kernel, or the latest stable from MX linux/Debian, and always go back to the previous is it doesn’t workout.

    I am not sure if this will help with the specific issue, but installing kernels has never given me any irreversible problems. I once tried installing 5.X on a bit older machine, and couldn’t boot (kernel panic), but you simply select a different/older kernel from Grub’s advanced options, boot into a working system and uninstall the problematic kernel.

    antiX Live system enthusiast.
    General Live Boot Parameters for antiX.

    #68087
    Member
    PenguinGuy
    Helpful
    Up
    0

    Do you know if it is possible to upgrade my Kernel to the latest stable without breaking antiX (maybe they have better driver support from my ssd)?

    You could install any liquorix kernel, or the latest stable from MX linux/Debian, and always go back to the previous is it doesn’t workout.

    I am not sure if this will help with the specific issue, but installing kernels has never given me any irreversible problems. I once tried installing 5.X on a bit older machine, and couldn’t boot (kernel panic), but you simply select a different/older kernel from Grub’s advanced options, boot into a working system and uninstall the problematic kernel.

    Well I had to install 5.10.57 for antiX to recognize my SSD, otherwise I wouldn’t bother uprgrading the kernel (but I figure it’s an easy fix if it improves anything).

    How would I install stable (5.14)?

    I can’t find any MX Linux or Debian kernels for it — do I have to download an ISO & extract them or can I just download & install 5.14 from a site? Do I use a tool?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.