From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stas Sergeev Subject: Re: Symantec Ghost Console Client under Dosemu Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:18:48 +0400 Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <415C4E08.2060304@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org Hello. pvz@e.kth.se wrote: > 1) The MAC address of seen by Ghost in DOS needs to be the same as the > physical MAC address, and outgoing packets need to have the MAC address of the > physical card. This is possible, although in that mode dosemu will monopolize your NIC so that Linux will no longer use it. This also requires root. The setup for that is simple: $_pktdriver=(on) $_vnet="" $_netdev="eth0" Though right now the comments in the dosemu.conf do not suggest $_vnet can be set to "", it only says about "dosnet" and "tap". This needs to be fixed to avoid confusion. Though keep in mind that Ghost under dosemu will see only the packet interface, not your card. Ghost supports the packet driver interface, so this should be not a problem. > Dosnet, but this should probably be doable. Forget about dosnet. It is going to be removed. If you want dosemu to cooperate with your linux box wrt networking, use TAP. In that case though the DOS box will have the different (virtual) MAC, not the real one. > 2) Ghost will probably need to be able just to access the hard drive > directly As you know, this is no longer supported. > I can't seem to find if this is possible in current versions in > the HOWTO, although I seem to have seen indications that this at least > used to be possible in earlier versions. So it was removed. Not really, just disabled in global.conf, AFAICS. You can easily get it back with a trivial hack in global.conf (or even without any hacks at all). But I don't think it really had to be removed. People used it on their own risk, it worked for them, and suddenly it is not any more. Of course it is horribly unsafe, but not so much when your drive is not mounted at all, and it was available only for root, and being root you can corrupt your drives if you want to. So the removal probably have to be reconsidered. And if you'll manage to get the positive results, that will probably be a good motivation. > I'd also like to know if any of the components, specifically Dosnet Forget it. > direct > hard disk access is known to be particularilly flaky. To my own expirience (when it was still there) - it was not flakey. It was not perfect either (I had a few progs that worked with partition access, but not with wholedisk access), but it never, never ever costed me a single byte of lost info, even though I tried it with accessing the same space from within linux at the same time, and other weird things. And I have not seen any negative comments about it here either, although probably they took place before I subscribed. Yet I've seen (rightfull) complains when it was removed. This all doesn't look right to me. At least dosemu could check whether the drive is in use (any partition is mounted), and allow the access only if it is not. Or explicitly ask the confirmation for allowing it to corrupt the data...