21:44 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Tue Oct 01 2013
+13:40 < sam_moore> Another option for the login system (a really terrible option that I don't condone on any real world system, but it might just get us marks)
+13:40 < sam_moore> Is to provide some cgi scripts that wrap around "useradd" "userdel" and "usermod"
+13:40 < sam_moore> And have our "Login" function check /etc/shadow
+13:41 < sam_moore> I emailed UWA IT help desk about Pheme anyway
+13:41 < sam_moore> I wonder what they'll make of it...
+13:51 < jtanx> hehe
+13:52 < sam_moore> The more I think about it, the more I think LDAP is the way you'd do this properly though
+13:52 < sam_moore> It basically is a text file
+13:53 < jtanx> yeah
+13:53 < sam_moore> If you started with a text file, you'd quickly find yourself reinventing the wheel and probably converging with what LDAP already does
+13:53 < jtanx> I guess the real problem is that rolling our own solution is not really feasible in the time left, especially if you want to ensure it's at least ok in terms of security
+13:57 < sam_moore> Yes
+14:08 < sam_moore> For reference: http://www.debuntu.org/how-to-set-up-a-ldap-server-and-its-clients/
+14:09 < sam_moore> And http://mindref.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/openldap-create-user.html
+14:09 < sam_moore> (How to set up our own LDAP server)
+14:11 < jtanx> slapd
+14:12 < jtanx> what a weird choice of a name
+14:12 < sam_moore> Haha
+14:15 < jtanx> oh
+14:15 < jtanx> if you set up an ldap server
+14:15 < jtanx> http://phpldapadmin.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
+14:15 < jtanx> get them to manage the ldap database themselves
+14:15 < jtanx> :P
+14:15 < jtanx> to add or remove users
+14:22 < sam_moore> Yeah, that's kind of how ldap was designed
+14:22 < sam_moore> Technically I can probably modify my UWA "pheme" password from a command line using ldappasswd
+14:22 < sam_moore> Unless they use kerberos
+14:23 < sam_moore> (We don't want to start going into kerberos...)
+14:54 < sam_moore> Welp, I've put an LDAP server on my laptop for testing purposes
+14:54 < sam_moore> With an account "snoopy"
+14:55 < sam_moore> Seems to work... now to test it with our software
+14:55 < sam_moore> Hey, maybe we could just put an LDAP server on the BeagleBone and get a GUI LDAP editor
+14:56 < sam_moore> Oh right, you suggested that at 14:15
+14:56 < sam_moore> I like it though
+14:58 < jtanx> yah not too bad
+14:58 < jtanx> say we had an ldap server on the bbb
+14:59 < jtanx> we could even write the password manager in a different language
+14:59 < jtanx> if we wanted to make one
+14:59 < sam_moore> Yeah, exactly
+14:59 < jtanx> because it only has to interact with the ldap database
+14:59 < sam_moore> We shouldn't do that in the FastCGI program
+14:59 < jtanx> yup
+15:00 < sam_moore> I sent an email about it to everyone, suggesting PHP or python CGI to wrap around LDAP
+15:01 < sam_moore> I wonder when this system is going to start being put together though
+15:02 < sam_moore> We'll end up with a server and no hardware to control
+15:02 < jtanx> Looks like it
+15:02 < sam_moore> Those images Justin sent us look nice
+15:02 < jtanx> Yeah they look quite good
+15:07 < sam_moore> With the FastCGI program
+15:07 < sam_moore> Do you think it's better to pass options through the command line
+15:07 < sam_moore> Or have a bunch of #defines that need to get configured?
+15:08 < sam_moore> eg: To specify the LDAP server
+15:08 < sam_moore> (At the moment it's just a #define)
+15:08 < jtanx> hmm
+15:08 < jtanx> It's probably better to pass as a command line
+15:09 < sam_moore> Ok
+15:09 < jtanx> unless we're absolutely sure that the ldap address is fixed
+15:10 < sam_moore> What we can do is write a bash script that sets a bunch of variables
+15:10 < sam_moore> Then run.sh sources that and passes them all as arguments
+15:10 < jtanx> sounds good
+15:35 < sam_moore> What about things like the path to the GPIO and ADC? I figure they should stay as #defines
+15:35 < sam_moore> Since they probably won't be changing
+15:36 < sam_moore> At least not until the next BeagleBone kernel comes out
+15:36 < jtanx> hehe
+15:36 < jtanx> yeah that should stay as defins
+15:36 < jtanx> if the path does change
+15:36 < jtanx> then that probably warrants a recompile anyway since stuff may have changed with how you access it
+15:36 < sam_moore> Ok, should I put all the defines that you might want to adjust on a recompile in the same place?
+15:37 < sam_moore> common.h?
+15:37 < jtanx> what defines do we have right now
+15:37 < jtanx> that may change
+15:39 < sam_moore> Nothing major, I just want it to be flexible
+15:39 < jtanx> hmm
+15:39 < jtanx> even if you did that
+15:39 < jtanx> if you needed to change the define
+15:39 < jtanx> you'd probably be looking at changing hte code anyway
+15:40 < sam_moore> Sure, but that doesn't mean you can't put the defines in an easy to find place
+15:40 < sam_moore> For example, say someone wants to recompile this for a RPi
+15:40 < jtanx> But for stuff like 'where's the pwm path'
+15:40 < sam_moore> Given the trouble we had with pwm path confusion
+15:41 < jtanx> I'd look in the header relevant to pin control
+15:41 < sam_moore> I think it's helpful to make it easy for someone to see what we're doing
+15:41 < sam_moore> I suppose
+15:42 < jtanx> ok I guess it doesn't matter if it goes in common.h or not
+15:42 < sam_moore> Yeah, but I think I agree with you now :P
+15:42 < jtanx> ( I guess this is what ./configure and configure.h are for :P )
+15:51 < sam_moore> Sigh...
+15:51 < sam_moore> I put in a #warning to generate a warning if you tried to compile the software on something that isn't the BeagleBone
+15:51 < sam_moore> ...
+15:51 < sam_moore> And the use of #warning caused a warning
+15:52 < sam_moore> warning: #warning is a GCC extension [enabled by default]
+16:05 < jtanx> :p
+16:08 < jtanx> because of the -pedantic flag
+21:13 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Wed Oct 02 2013
+--- Day changed Thu Oct 03 2013
+09:30 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+10:26 -!- MctxBot_ is now known as MctxBot
+10:45 < jtanx> finally
+12:09 < MctxBot> guh
+12:09 < MctxBot> crappy laptop keeps crashing
+12:20 -!- jtanx_ is now known as jtanx
+12:28 < jtanx> about login_handler
+12:28 < jtanx> The result from FCGI_ParseRequest
+12:28 < jtanx> for string types
+12:28 < jtanx> should be treated as const char*
+12:29 < jtanx> I guess it really doesn't matter, unless it returns an empty string
+12:29 < jtanx> it's also not true that user/pass would be of max length BUFSIZ
+12:30 < jtanx> because of how it was defined, params has a max length of BUFSIZ
+12:30 < jtanx> but user/pass may be anywhere in that string
+12:30 < jtanx> so their max length < BUFSIZ
+12:30 < jtanx> so the bounds check makes no sense
+12:31 < jtanx> (sure, it prevents an infinite loop, but by that stage, you could be writing to locations where you don't want to anyway)
+12:31 < jtanx> besides, FCGI_ParseRequest should guarantee that they're null terminated
+12:38 < jtanx> also, whitespace (>.< :P)
+12:38 < sam_moore> True, but this is the whole "defensive" programming thing where you assume that some future unspecified developer is going to do something stupid and you attempt to minimise the damage they can cause :P
+12:38 < jtanx> while (*user && isspace(*user)) user++;
+12:38 < jtanx> char *ptr = user;
+12:38 < jtanx> while (*ptr && isalnum(*ptr)) ptr++;
+12:38 < jtanx> *ptr = 0;
+12:39 < jtanx> well
+12:39 < jtanx> by that stage you're screwed anyway
+12:39 < jtanx> not much point doing something that doesn't make sense too
+12:39 < sam_moore> You're more screwed if your program is writing to undefined locations in an infinite loop than if it's writing to a finite number of undefined locations
+12:39 < jtanx> still
+12:39 < jtanx> at least if it's infinite
+12:39 < jtanx> you'll know it crashes
+12:40 < jtanx> actually that's hardly the case
+12:40 < jtanx> because it will come across a zero at some point
+12:40 < jtanx> more often than not
+12:40 < jtanx> but anyway...
+12:40 < jtanx> does valgrind pick that up?
+12:41 < sam_moore> Hah
+12:41 < jtanx> and to be honest, by adding the BUFSIZ check, that's implying their max length when it's actually not
+12:41 < jtanx> which may be confusing in itself
+12:41 < sam_moore> The operating system should pick up a segfault on the first invalid write anyway
+12:41 < jtanx> unless
+12:41 < jtanx> the following region is writeable too
+12:42 < jtanx> eg you have a struct, members follow each other
+12:43 < sam_moore> If you really want to remove the bounds check go ahead
+12:43 < sam_moore> Either way that code does what it's meant to
+12:43 < jtanx> ok, well yeah
+12:44 < jtanx> hmm
+12:44 < jtanx> problem
+12:44 < jtanx> anyone can logout the currently logged in user
+12:44 < jtanx> oh wait
+12:45 < jtanx> sorry
+12:48 < sam_moore> My network is being terrible so I can't say much
+12:48 < sam_moore> One last argument in favour of the BUFSIZ check... if someone modifies the function that "should" be guaranteed to null terminate the string and doesn't... then you fall into an infinite loop
+12:49 < jtanx> well that's a case of too bad
+12:49 < jtanx> if it infinite loops
+12:49 < jtanx> then it shows you've done something wrong, so it'd be a good case to check what you've done
+12:50 < jtanx> if you hide that with a BUFSIZ check, you may not know there's a problem until later down the track
+12:50 < sam_moore> If you port the code to run in a kernel module or something, it's a case of instead of getting a seg fault, you suddenly wipe out all your memory
+12:50 < jtanx> with a kernel module, you'd be testing it pretty rigorously in a vm, i would think :P
+12:51 < sam_moore> Yeah, but it pays not to assume things about the sanity of other programmers
+12:51 < sam_moore> That's why all that extremely irritating "public, private" stuff is used
+12:52 < jtanx> to be honest, I'd rather have it fail fast than come up with weird issues that may/may not happen all the time
+12:52 < sam_moore> Anyway, just remove the bounds check, this is getting ridiciluos
+13:31 < jtanx> hmmm
+13:31 < jtanx> if ($http_cookie ~* "id=([^;] +)(?:;|$)" ) {
+13:31 < jtanx> set $id $1;
+13:31 < jtanx> }
+13:32 < jtanx> right now, only the control key can be sent as the one and only cookie
+13:38 < jtanx> we could get nginx to extract the desired cookie
+14:33 < jtanx> actually nah
+21:17 < jtanx> herp derp
+21:17 < jtanx> was idling in mctxuwa
+21:17 < jtanx> not mctxuwa_softdev
+21:40 < jtanx> anyway...
+21:40 < jtanx> a (the) login/logout functionality is almost done for the gui
+21:40 < jtanx> to make it work, I need to add the identify module to the modules that doesn't need login
+21:41 < jtanx> also, maybe fields to indicate if logged in or not when ident is called + if logged in, a 'human friendly' name to display for the user
+22:34 < jtanx> ok
+22:34 < jtanx> it's just about done. It auto redirects you (via javascript) to the login page if you're logged out (and vice versa)
+22:34 < jtanx> this can be disabled for debugging purposes by changing mctx.debug=true in mctx.gui.js
+22:34 < jtanx> it works quite well, I think
+22:35 < jtanx> I still haven't implemented the whole 'friendly name' thing though
+22:35 < jtanx> (e.g the 'Welcome Joe Bloggs' with the actual user name or something)
+22:40 < jtanx> test at: https://mctx.us.to:8043/test/
+22:42 < jtanx> except now there's a logout bug grr...
+22:46 < jtanx> fixed
+23:32 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Fri Oct 04 2013
+14:50 < jtanx> so i'm in uni right now
+14:50 < jtanx> and was playing with the webcam
+14:50 < jtanx> If I followed this: http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=35689&p=314596
+14:51 < jtanx> It actually displays something and not the black image
+14:51 < jtanx> the problem is that it only displays maybe the top 5% of the image
+14:51 < jtanx> the rest is nothing
+14:51 < jtanx> I think the next step from here is to try compiling the latest version of the uvcvideo driver ourselves
+14:51 < jtanx> see if it helps
+14:59 < jtanx> google 'uvcvideo beaglebone issues'
+14:59 < jtanx> I wonder how we didn't see that before
+15:00 < jtanx> http://e2e.ti.com/support/arm/sitara_arm/f/791/t/223368.aspx
+15:03 < jtanx> so many issues getting the camera to work
+15:03 < jtanx> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/beagleboard/sgCwaP5RVUo/aFPBOk02A7IJ
+15:04 < jtanx> fwiw I'm not sure we'll be able to support cameras at all, at this rate
+15:04 < jtanx> although some seem to have success with UVC video. no idea why
+15:08 < jtanx> except I was testing it on angstrom
+15:08 < jtanx> when i boot off the sd card, there's no modprobe and no rmmod
+15:08 < jtanx> tf
+15:08 < jtanx> wtf
+15:10 < jtanx> derp
+15:10 < jtanx> not root
+15:20 < jtanx> well crap, I got it working with ffmpeg
+15:20 < jtanx> ffmpeg -f video4linux2 -input_format mjpeg -i /dev/video0 -vcodec copy o.mjpg
+15:21 < jtanx> along with the 'uvcvideo nodrop=1 timeout=5000 quriks=0x80'
+15:21 < jtanx> it spits out a bunch of warnings though
+15:26 < jtanx> ahh
+15:26 < jtanx> if set to rawvideo
+15:27 < jtanx> 640x480 is not supported
+15:27 < jtanx> it must be that it's such a large resolution that only mjpg is supported
+15:27 < jtanx> 320x240 works fine
+15:32 < jtanx> ah well
+15:32 < jtanx> that's alll for now
+15:32 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+22:15 < jtanx> I got user friendly names working
+22:15 < jtanx> 'except by user friendly I mean their usernames
+22:16 < jtanx> I guess for LDAP we could look up their real name? but I don't know how to do that.
+22:19 < sam_moore> I'm not sure how, but it can be done
+22:20 < sam_moore> However it's probably a fair amount of work
+22:20 < sam_moore> So I'd make it low priority
+22:20 < jtanx> yeah ok
+22:20 < sam_moore> Afterall, *they* know who they are
+22:20 < sam_moore> Good work with the camera
+22:20 < sam_moore> I'll be in tomorrow morning I guess
+22:20 < sam_moore> Working on another project now
+22:21 < jtanx> Yeah, the camera's still not finished though - it's really buggy and I only got it working with ffmpeg and not opencv
+22:21 < sam_moore> Anything is progress
+22:23 < sam_moore> 0/away
+22:24 < sam_moore> Stupid network lag
+23:13 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Sat Oct 05 2013
+11:37 < sam_moore> Hi, I'm at Uni, but we can't access G19
+11:38 < sam_moore> I was hoping Rowan, Justin, James or Callum would come in though
+11:38 < sam_moore> But I guess I need to do more stuff for CITS3003 anyway
+12:18 < jtanx> Sorry, I can't make it today
+12:19 < jtanx> Too much crap with my CITS3242 and CITS2232 projects to deal with
+12:19 < sam_moore> Ok no problem
+13:16 < jtanx> james just posted some layout stuff via email
+18:06 < jtanx> now... to do some work on this gui
+21:15 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Sun Oct 06 2013
+11:17 < jtanx> slight problem: http://i.imgur.com/D28SHaQ.png
+11:17 < jtanx> 100% cpu usage on idle
+11:18 < jtanx> that memory usage too doesn't look too healthy
+11:18 < sam_moore> Damn
+11:20 < jtanx> I also probably figured out why valgrind crashes with the --trace-origins option - not enough memory on my system :P
+11:30 < jtanx> It's probably because in read data all the cases except one have a sleep in them
+11:31 < sam_moore> I'd say so
+11:31 < sam_moore> There are like 8 threads
+11:31 < sam_moore> We don't need 8 threads
+11:39 < sam_moore> Are you in G19?
+11:39 < jtanx> no
+11:40 < sam_moore> Alright
+11:40 < sam_moore> I suppose I should do some work on this
+11:40 < sam_moore> CITS3003 is funner though
+11:40 < sam_moore> I'll look into the performance issues
+11:41 < jtanx> hehe
+11:42 < sam_moore> My "Incident" with UWA IS is now Moderate Priority
+11:42 < sam_moore> It's been assigned!
+11:42 < sam_moore> I suppose I should wait for this guy to email me and say "What the hell are you on about?"
+11:42 < sam_moore> (Re: Using Pheme)
+11:42 < sam_moore> They classified it as a "Request for service"
+11:43 < sam_moore> Which I suppose is true, except they don't really have to do anything
+11:43 < jtanx> o.o
+11:44 < jtanx> I hope it goes through
+11:44 < sam_moore> Yes, no one's going to do a user management system
+11:44 < jtanx> Yep
+11:44 < sam_moore> When people complain they have nothing to do though...
+11:44 < sam_moore> That's like a semester of work right there
+12:40 < sam_moore> um... that image you linked
+12:40 < sam_moore> That's not actually running on the BeagleBone is it?
+12:40 < sam_moore> Because on the BeagleBone
+12:40 < sam_moore> It's like 0.7%
+12:41 < sam_moore> Actually 0.3% CPU 1.1% memory
+12:50 < jtanx> no
+12:50 < jtanx> that's because there's a conditional #ifdef
+12:50 < jtanx> beaglebone to sleep
+12:50 < jtanx> I got that condition around the wrong way
+12:50 < jtanx> Initially I thought you wanted to test the absolute maximum sampling rate on the BBB
+12:53 < jtanx> I just updated the repo to really remove that pwm array reference
+12:54 < jtanx> (about the cpu) It's because of this: https://github.com/szmoore/MCTX3420/blob/master/server/sensor.c#L257
+12:55 < jtanx> That ifdef should be removed anyway, just put in an unconditional sleep for 0.1s
+12:55 < jtanx> then remove the individual sleeps from each sensor case
+13:17 < sam_moore> Sure
+13:17 < sam_moore> Light has been shed on the PWM thing
+13:18 < sam_moore> They are using some RC circuit which I believe averages out the PWM to give you a constant signal
+13:18 < sam_moore> I thought it was some kind of IC that took a PWM input
+13:21 < jtanx> oh ok
+13:22 < jtanx> yeah that's what I thought too
+13:22 < jtanx> so no dac I guess
+13:22 < jtanx> (dac ic that is)
+13:24 < sam_moore> I have my doubts that electronics will be able to make this custom DAC
+13:24 < sam_moore> And of course, no DAC means no Pressure control
+13:24 < sam_moore> But oh well
+13:24 < jtanx> ^_^
+13:24 < jtanx> homebrew DAC
+13:25 < jtanx> how will this ever be calibrated
+13:26 < sam_moore> We should probably include a calibration routine in software
+13:27 < sam_moore> I'm looking a bit more into the RT linux stuff
+13:27 < sam_moore> It doesn't look too crazy
+13:27 < sam_moore> Our program pretty much looks the same
+13:27 < sam_moore> With a function at initialisation to set it's priority and stuff
+13:27 < sam_moore> But otherwise, you just use usleep, sleep, pthreads, everything as normal
+13:28 < jtanx> ok
+13:28 < jtanx> as long as it works on the bbb I guess
+13:30 < sam_moore> I think I should port from gettimeofday to clock_gettime too
+13:35 < sam_moore> https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RT_PREEMPT_HOWTO
+13:35 < sam_moore> I'll compile us a kernel and see if it works
+14:09 < sam_moore> Yeah, it looks like RT Linux won't work on the BBB
+14:09 < sam_moore> Oh well
+14:17 < jtanx> damn
+15:34 < Callum> Hey guys, sorry i havent been in touch lately. done a bit of work on dilatometer but its not quite complete. Uploaded what iv done but i got a test i tomorrow i should go study for now
+16:29 < jtanx> hahaha
+16:30 < jtanx> interactive sbd
+16:31 < jtanx> hmm dialatometer
+16:45 < jtanx> Justin's idea with the system diagram was pretty good
+16:55 < jtanx> test run: https://mctx.us.to:8043/test/
+16:55 < jtanx> no links yet
+16:55 < jtanx> no descriptions either
+16:55 < jtanx> logout when you're done
+16:55 < jtanx> no auth so type anything you want in login field
+17:24 < Callum> looks pretty good
+18:12 < jtanx> I stuffed up /etc/fstab and now the root filesystem is readonly :(
+18:19 < jtanx> ...and I just wasted time booting off ubuntu 7.04, which doesn't support ext4...
+18:43 -!- Callum_ is now known as Callum
+19:30 < jtanx> I've just enabled personal webspace for everyone
+19:30 < jtanx> check your emails for details
+19:52 < jtanx> :(
+21:11 < sam_moore> Cool
+21:11 < sam_moore> Sorry, I'm trying to finish CITS3003
+21:25 < jtanx> Yep no problem
+21:38 < jtanx> nice: http://cssmenumaker.com
+22:09 < jtanx> weird, getting http 500 when trying to access our github repo
+23:16 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Mon Oct 07 2013
+12:47 < callum> you guys in g19?
+18:44 < jtanx> ha, you can clone a wiki
+18:45 < jtanx> git clone https://github.com/szmoore/MCTX3420.wiki.git
+20:50 < sam_moore> Yeah, I know
+20:51 < sam_moore> I don't really think it's great to be relying on the BeagleBone to serve all these additional requirements
+20:51 < jtanx> Yeah, probably not
+20:52 < jtanx> I've just been playing around with django for my CITS2232 project
+20:52 < jtanx> it's like a python based cms
+20:53 < sam_moore> That might work
+20:53 < jtanx> It's actually not too bad
+20:53 < jtanx> but incredibly annoying to learn how to use
+20:53 < jtanx> it's got its own inbuilt user system
+20:54 < sam_moore> How could we query it from our server though?
+20:54 < jtanx> as in?
+20:54 < jtanx> you can still query directly from the browser
+20:54 < jtanx> from django itself
+20:54 < jtanx> I'm definitely sure there's a json parsing library
+20:55 < jtanx> (python at least should have one)
+20:56 < sam_moore> As in, if we want to "login"
+20:56 < sam_moore> How do we authenticate?
+20:57 < sam_moore> From within the FastCGI process
+20:57 < jtanx> Okay, there's two approaches I guess
+20:58 < jtanx> if you want to continue to use fastcgi to login I guess you could get django to figure out
+20:58 < jtanx> who's logged in
+20:58 < jtanx> If you use django's login system
+20:58 < jtanx> hmm
+21:00 < jtanx> but one thing I haven't done yet is how do you prevent concurrent access in django
+21:01 < jtanx> but say this:
+21:01 < sam_moore> I think binding to an LDAP server is pretty standard for this sort of thing
+21:01 < sam_moore> I think Django can even let you bind to LDAP for using it
+21:01 < jtanx> probably
+21:01 < jtanx> I think class2go was built using django
+21:01 < jtanx> if you've ever used that crappy website
+21:02 < jtanx> say for the fastcgi process we revert to
+21:02 < jtanx> /api/control?lock
+21:02 < jtanx> /api/control?unlock
+21:02 < jtanx> etc
+21:02 < jtanx> but /api/control is only visible to django
+21:02 < sam_moore> Ah, I see
+21:02 < sam_moore> Um...
+21:02 < jtanx> then django can query it
+21:02 < jtanx> and conditionally return the control key?
+21:03 < jtanx> i dunno
+21:03 < sam_moore> I'd be slightly nervous about adding additional systems that have to work together though
+21:03 < jtanx> yeah
+21:03 < jtanx> that's the problem
+21:03 < sam_moore> I mean, if it works, it's fine
+21:03 < sam_moore> If it breaks, suddenly anyone (or noone) can access the real underlying hardware
+21:03 < jtanx> Yeah
+21:04 < jtanx> especially if someone screws up the server config
+21:04 < sam_moore> I think I'd prefer to stick with the current login handler
+21:04 < sam_moore> There's some flexibility with how you actually do the authentication
+21:04 < jtanx> Sure
+21:06 < jtanx> I'm just thinking, how would we implement the 'admin' features
+21:06 < jtanx> you'd then have to have some sort of list distinguishing normal users from admins
+21:06 < jtanx> unless you hardcode admins?...
+21:07 < sam_moore> With LDAP you can store admin as a user field and check it
+21:08 < sam_moore> With /etc/shadow, have 2 files
+21:08 < sam_moore> One for admin, one for regular users
+21:08 < sam_moore> (When I say /etc/shadow I just mean the style of auth, not necessarily actually using *the* /etc/shadow)
+21:08 < sam_moore> In fact
+21:09 < sam_moore> We could possibly do a minimalist user management with python cgi and a custom /etc/shadow style file
+21:10 < jtanx> say what
+21:11 < jtanx> so use the python cgi to modify it
+21:11 < sam_moore> Yeah
+21:11 < jtanx> our c fastcgi to read
+21:11 < sam_moore> Yes
+21:11 < jtanx> that could work
+21:11 < jtanx> have a look at flask
+21:11 < sam_moore> It's also probably possible to easily do a lot of the things Adam wanted
+21:12 < jtanx> flask is like the simpler version of django
+21:12 < sam_moore> At least, you can get python cgi to send emails to people with a temporary password and ask them to change it
+21:12 < jtanx> i think I still have an example too
+21:15 < sam_moore> If you want and it doesn't require rewriting large parts of the FastCGI process
+21:15 < sam_moore> Personally I don't think I have the time
+21:16 < jtanx> well if it's completely separate from the fastcgi process
+21:16 < sam_moore> Sure
+21:17 < jtanx> hmm
+21:18 < sam_moore> Just a simple CGI script might do the job though
+21:18 < jtanx> yeah
+21:18 < jtanx> except nginx doesn't have normal cgi
+21:19 < sam_moore> Wat
+21:19 < jtanx> only fastcgi
+21:19 < sam_moore> Damn
+21:19 < sam_moore> And I guess apache2 only has normal cgi and not fastcgi?
+21:19 < jtanx> there may be mod_fastcgi
+21:19 < jtanx> but
+21:19 < jtanx> before we get ahead of ourselves
+21:20 < jtanx> okay no, nginx doesn't have fastcgi
+21:20 < jtanx> sorry cgi*
+21:20 < jtanx> we could do it in php
+21:21 < jtanx> urgh
+21:21 < sam_moore> urgh indeed...
+21:21 < sam_moore> I dunno
+21:22 < sam_moore> We *did* tell Adam that we wouldn
+21:22 < sam_moore> 't be able to do the user management system
+21:22 < jtanx> haha
+21:23 < sam_moore> I really think getting our program to interface with an LDAP server is reasonable
+21:23 < jtanx> yeah
+21:23 < sam_moore> Ok, I need to fix CITS3003 some more
+22:46 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+22:53 < jtanx> brainspark: we can probably use django to proxy api requests
+22:53 < jtanx> so it goes like this: user <-> django <-> server api
+22:54 < jtanx> then you don't even have to expose the server api at all
+22:54 < jtanx> although if I ever end up trying this I don't know
+22:55 < jtanx> (by expose I mean that django can conditionally pass on the results from queries to the api)
+22:55 < jtanx> but yeah, it's probably best to leave it how it is right now
+22:55 < jtanx> as I doubt I have the time to implement this
+23:10 < jtanx> it would definitely add overhead too
+23:40 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Tue Oct 08 2013
+21:16 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+--- Day changed Wed Oct 09 2013
+10:56 < jtanx_> welp the usb microscope arrived
+10:56 < jtanx_> it uses uvcvideo too
+12:00 < jtanx_> shit, we have to coordinate one report across the whole cohort
+12:02 < sam_moore> Yeah, shit
+12:03 < sam_moore> This unit has not been run very well
+12:03 < sam_moore> Except the tutorials
+12:06 < sam_moore> If I still cared I
+12:06 < sam_moore> d try and take charge of putting the report together
+12:07 < sam_moore> But I know that if no one else does it we'll all pass anyway since you can't fail an entire class
+12:07 < sam_moore> So terrible
+12:07 < sam_moore> We should just start writing a chapter on the software
+12:09 < sam_moore> I wonder if we could use the wiki format and export it as a pdf somehow
+12:11 < sam_moore> https://github.com/szmoore/MCTX3420/wiki/Hardware:-Pneumatics
+12:11 < sam_moore> Hilarious
+12:41 < jtanx_> ~.~
+12:41 < jtanx_> our final report will be the wiki!
+12:42 < jtanx_> made some progress on the camera
+12:42 < jtanx_> lowering the resolution to 352x288
+12:42 < jtanx_> and it will work with openc
+12:42 < jtanx_> opencv
+12:42 < jtanx_> ffmpeg's fine with 640x480 though
+12:42 < jtanx_> opencv just sucks
+12:57 < jtanx_> good 'ol stream.html
+13:05 < jtanx_> those fatal checks in sensor.c are bad
+13:05 < jtanx_> because half the time adc reads will fail and the whole program just crashes
+13:07 < jtanx_> oh right I saw your email, nevermind
+13:08 < jtanx_> I'm not getting the warnings that you're seeing either
+13:12 < sam_moore> Yeah, those warnings were actually on my laptop though, they don't seem to appear on the BeagleBone
+13:12 < sam_moore> I'm redoing the sensors code a fair bit
+13:12 < sam_moore> You'll probably hate it :P
+13:12 < sam_moore> Well, it's not really redoing the structure of how they work
+13:13 < sam_moore> Just separating the logic of how sensors get read from all that control loop stuf
+13:14 < sam_moore> I'm going to keep with the "one thread per sensor" idea, because that is definitely the simplest
+13:16 < sam_moore> Did you tell Omid that they shouldn't assume anything about the state of the GPIO pins before the software starts?
+13:16 < sam_moore> Which means that if (unlikely, but I don't know what they're doing) having two pins on at once would cause a catastrophic failure...
+13:16 < sam_moore> By murphy's law, it will almost certainly happen
+13:59 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+14:52 < jtanx> oh yah, somehow electronics ordered a non-powered usb hub
+14:52 < jtanx> I'm pretty sure we told them to get a powered usb hub...
+14:57 < sam_moore> Yep, and I remember them saying that is what they were going to get
+14:57 < sam_moore> Dammit, I'm stuck trying to pick the best name for something -_-
+14:57 < sam_moore> The worst place to be stuck
+15:19 < jtanx> ??
+15:19 < jtanx> thesaurus.com
+15:23 < sam_moore> Hahaha
+15:23 < sam_moore> I decided the thing didn't really need to exist
+15:23 < sam_moore> Problem solved
+15:24 < sam_moore> If someone who knows absolutely nothing about programming tries to add sensors to our program they will still be confused
+15:24 < jtanx> Hahaha
+15:24 < sam_moore> But I hope I've made it easier for someone who knows what they're doing
+15:24 < jtanx> Okay
+15:24 < jtanx> what were the compiler warnings that you got
+15:25 < sam_moore> pin_test.c:41:10: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
+15:25 < sam_moore> pin_test.c:48:10: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
+15:25 < sam_moore> More on lines 54, 128, 190,204
+15:25 < jtanx> weird
+15:25 < jtanx> I never saw any of those
+15:25 < sam_moore> Also I think the code I just wrote for the Strain sensors gives some as well
+15:25 < sam_moore> Yes, it does
+15:26 < jtanx> did you change GPIO_Export to use int type
+15:26 < jtanx> wait
+15:26 < jtanx> what am I saying
+15:26 < sam_moore> It already uses int type?
+15:26 < sam_moore> But it's something like that
+15:26 < sam_moore> It looks like you're using unsigned char for something
+15:27 < sam_moore> int gpio_num = Strain_To_GPIO(id);
+15:27 < sam_moore> GPIO_Export(gpio_num);
+15:27 < sam_moore> Is the sort of thing that causes the warning
+15:27 < sam_moore> But I have "bool GPIO_Export(int pin)" in bbb_pin.c
+15:27 < jtanx> oh right
+15:27 < sam_moore> So it makes no sense
+15:28 < jtanx> hmm
+15:29 < sam_moore> Ooh
+15:29 < sam_moore> It must be something to do with the "stub" functions
+15:29 < jtanx> Is this on compilation on the BBB
+15:29 < sam_moore> No, BBB was fine last time I checked
+15:29 < jtanx> okay,w ell I'm not getting any warnings
+15:29 < sam_moore> Compiling on my laptop because it's faster
+15:30 < sam_moore> #define GPIO_Export(pin) True_Stub((void*)pin)
+15:30 < sam_moore> That means the int is getting cast to a void*
+15:30 < jtanx> yeah on my computer it's not putting out any warnings
+15:30 < jtanx> int to void* is fine
+15:30 < jtanx> anything to void* is fine
+15:30 < jtanx> actually
+15:30 < jtanx> is your system 64 bit
+15:30 < sam_moore> 64 bit
+15:31 < jtanx> yeah
+15:31 < sam_moore> (You still have 32 bit :P)
+15:31 < jtanx> well that would explain it
+15:31 < sam_moore> Ok, it doesn't matter
+15:31 < sam_moore> The stub function doesn't actually do anything with the value
+15:31 < jtanx> cast int to int64 or whatever it is
+15:32 < sam_moore> That would cause warnings on the BBB though?
+15:32 < jtanx> only for the stub functions
+15:32 < jtanx> and only for 64 bit
+15:32 < jtanx> more ifdefs, yay
+15:32 < sam_moore> ...
+15:32 < jtanx> or we could get rid of the stubs
+15:32 < sam_moore> I'm just going to ignore the warnings
+15:32 < sam_moore> That could also work
+15:32 < sam_moore> It doesn't really matter
+15:32 < jtanx> and just do Wno-unsued-function or someting
+15:32 < jtanx> yeah, oh well
+15:35 < jtanx> One of the suggestions for the dilatometer was to just take a photo at the start and at the end
+15:35 < jtanx> then do comparison
+15:35 < sam_moore> Um, ok
+15:35 < sam_moore> If they just want 2 data points
+15:35 < jtanx> well
+15:35 < jtanx> if we can find something other than opencv
+15:36 < sam_moore> Ah
+15:36 < sam_moore> How slow is it?
+15:36 < jtanx> that may help, because right now opencv only plays nice with 352x288 or some other crap resolution
+15:36 < jtanx> it's not that it's slow
+15:36 < jtanx> is that it only works if the resolution is ~ 350 pixels x 2xx pixels
+15:37 < jtanx> ffmpeg is fine with 640x480 afaik
+15:37 < jtanx> it could probably do higher but haven't tested that
+15:38 < sam_moore> http://libccv.org/
+15:38 < sam_moore> Maybe
+15:39 < jtanx> or what if we framegrabbed with some external softare
+15:39 < jtanx> then used opencv to process the saved image
+15:39 < sam_moore> Yes, I was about to suggest that
+15:39 < sam_moore> I'm assuming the problem with OpenCV is that it doesn't like taking images from cameras directly of that resolution
+15:39 < sam_moore> And not some underlying problem with having large CvMats or something
+15:40 < jtanx> no idea why
+15:40 < jtanx> some obscure setting can probably fix it or something
+15:40 < jtanx> but I'm not about to trawl though opencv documentaiton now
+15:40 < sam_moore> Actually OpenCV works with my 640x480 webcam, so it's probably some low level arm specific problem
+15:40 < sam_moore> Which would probably mean that other image processing libraries would also suck
+15:40 < jtanx> it may be that too
+15:41 < jtanx> I know that with ffmpeg it was spitting warnings at 640x480
+15:41 < jtanx> like non-monotonically increasing timestamp
+15:41 < jtanx> and some other crap
+15:41 < jtanx> I was running guvcview though
+15:42 < jtanx> and it seemed to take 640x480 just fine
+15:42 < jtanx> it was quite slow with x-forwarding and all, but at least it worked
+15:44 < sam_moore> Hmm
+15:44 < sam_moore> I would be inclined to say that taking a bunch of data points at low resolution is probably more useful than taking 2 data points at high resolution
+15:45 < sam_moore> The best solution is to find some way of reading at the higher resolution though
+15:46 < sam_moore> ... I'm worried about what Kieran is going to produce if he writes this dilatometer algorithm
+15:46 < sam_moore> It's going to return an array isn't it...
+15:46 < sam_moore> I have no idea why
+15:47 < jtanx> :3
+15:47 < jtanx> brb ~5 mins while I relocate to a lecture theatre
+15:47 < sam_moore> Ok
+15:47 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
+16:13 < sam_moore> Ok, this is both terrible and awesome
+16:13 < sam_moore> But I've written a test "sensor" that is essentially just an external program
+16:17 < sam_moore> So... if anyone complains about not being able to use python... they can use python
+16:17 < sam_moore> And they don't have to reinvent all of our FastCGI stuff
+16:17 < sam_moore> Although apparently that's easy in python anyway
+16:17 < sam_moore> It's the thought that counts
+16:21 < jtanx> :P
+16:21 < jtanx> flup
+16:30 < jtanx> http://zacharyvoase.com/2009/09/08/sendfile/
+16:30 < jtanx> this could be interesting
+16:31 < jtanx> replace static with our fastcgi app
+16:31 < jtanx> http://wiki.nginx.org/XSendfile
+18:07 < jtanx> mmm feature creep
+18:08 < sam_moore> Meh, it was better than dealing with that switch statement
+18:09 < jtanx> yeah
+18:09 < sam_moore> Also it made it really easy to decide where to put mutexes
+18:10 < sam_moore> Given that I would have had to write a "strain.c" and do about the same amount of work anyway, I think the solution is a good one
+18:10 < jtanx> it kind o makes sense though
+18:11 < jtanx> you can't particularly generalise that much to each sensor type
+18:11 < jtanx> so it makes sense to separate out based on what type of sensor it is
+18:11 < sam_moore> Yes
+18:11 < sam_moore> The Piped sensor is definitely feature creep though :P
+18:12 < jtanx> ^-^
+18:12 < sam_moore> Although...
+18:13 < sam_moore> If we wanted to distribute the sensors with a "master slave" system
+18:13 < sam_moore> The code would end up looking alot like that
+18:13 < sam_moore> Except with a network socket instead of a unix domain socket
+18:14 < sam_moore> Also I'm not sure why I called it piped given that it doesn't use a pipe
+18:14 < sam_moore> I suppose it sounds cooler than "uds"
+18:20 < jtanx> So with electronics
+18:20 < jtanx> the reason why they were having issues with getting the psu approved
+18:20 < jtanx> was because they wanted to cut the leads and solder directly to the board
+18:21 < jtanx> Oliver suggested that they use extension connectors
+18:21 < jtanx> and cut the lead on the extension
+18:21 < jtanx> but why they didn't think of that first, I don't know
+18:45 < jtanx> now to watch this week's lecture...
+21:31 -!- jtanx [
[email protected]] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258]"]
git.ucc.asn.au / matches / MCTX3420.git / blobdiff
UCC git Repository :: git.ucc.asn.au