Just installed 12.3 and noticed unfamiliar files in the tree. I’m seeing “run” and “srv” files/directories and wondering if they are something installed from malicious code through the internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard#Directory_structure
–
dd
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobile” of operating systems!
Not looking for anything from wikipedia.
SO that is the file structure normally used. You seeing differences then say how they are different.
Again, are these files from malicious code or are they part of the normal file structure of 12.3?
Incoherent response…
Please say which files ie what is the full path.
There are normally such directories as you can see from the wiki article. But if they appear in unusual places who knows. They are on my machine also off of root. ie /srv and /run is that where you are seeing them if so that is normal.
Again, read that Wikipedia article. You would learn what those directories are for.
Yes, they are part of the normal file structure, that’s why they are mentioned in this Filesystem Hierarchy Standard…
I think /run was introduced with systemd so is quite new, but /srv is there since I can remember.
Also those aren’t files but directories. What’s in these directories is a different story though. They could of course contain malicious code.
And what do you think we should conclude from your expression:
On 2013-05-07 16:46, atpmel wrote:
> Not looking for anything from wikipedia.
Your loss.
You can see in that article the official sources for that information,
and see in that official documentation that both run and srv are standard.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
atpmel wrote:
> DenverD;2554622 Wrote:
>> ‘Filesystem Hierarchy Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia’
>> (http://tinyurl.com/73tq8)
>>
>> –
>> dd
>> openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobile” of operating systems!
>
> Not looking for anything from wikipedia.
Well, dd answered your question (modulo /run being too new to be in the
wikipedia article ;( ) so perhaps you need to be specific as to why the
answer doesn’t satisfy you, and why we should care?
On 05/07/2013 05:40 PM, Dave Howorth wrote:
> modulo /run being too new to be in the wikipedia article
its not that new, its in there:
Modern Linux distributions include a /run directory as a temporary
filesystem (tmpfs) which stores volatile runtime data. According to
the FHS this data should be stored in /var/run but this was a problem
in some cases because this directory isn’t always available at early
boot. As a result, these programs have had to resort to such trickery
as using /dev/.udev, /dev/.mdadm, /dev/.systemd or /dev/.mount
directories, even though the device directory isn’t intended for such
data. [6]
with [6] pointing to http://lwn.net/Articles/436012/
–
dd
On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:56:02 +0000, atpmel wrote:
> gogalthorp;2554629 Wrote:
>> SO that is the file structure normally used. You seeing differences
>> then say how they are different.
>
> Incoherent response…
Absolutely coherent - and be aware that attacking the people who are
trying to help you is /not/ acceptable behaviour here.
If you don’t understand, say so, and ask for clarification. Don’t “slap”
people by saying things like this.
Let me give you an example.
It would be /easy/ to say that your question is incoherent, because
you’re not specifying full paths to the files in question. You’re making
those who are trying to help you guess where you’re looking.
Instead of doing that, though, you’ve got a few people who are trying to
help you, and you’re slapping them with answers like this.
That’s kinda rude. If you need clarification, by all means ask for it.
Nicely.
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
dd wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 05:40 PM, Dave Howorth wrote:
>> modulo /run being too new to be in the wikipedia article
>
> its not that new, its in there:
Ah, apologies. I just scanned the list. 
My bad.
> My bad.
not SO bad. its ok…i probably would have missed it in a scan
also…but i did a Ctrl+f and searched on “/run”
AH! i see now: i gave a URL ref direct to the pages “directory
structure”–where /run is NOT listed… that was my bad.
–
dd