Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Warner Losh
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > Gleb Smirnoff glebius at FreeBSD.org wrote > on Tue Feb 14 18:32:40 UTC 2017 : > >> After some discussion on svn mailing list [1], there is intention >> to remove SVR4 binary compatibilty layer from FreeBSD head,

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Mark Millard
Gleb Smirnoff glebius at FreeBSD.org wrote on Tue Feb 14 18:32:40 UTC 2017 : > After some discussion on svn mailing list [1], there is intention > to remove SVR4 binary compatibilty layer from FreeBSD head, meaning > that FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would > be shipped

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2017-Feb-14 10:32:32 -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > After some discussion on svn mailing list [1], there is intention >to remove SVR4 binary compatibilty layer from FreeBSD head, meaning >that FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would >be shipped without it.

Re: net.inet.udp.log_in_vain strange syslog reports

2017-02-15 Thread Eric van Gyzen
On 02/15/2017 08:56, Mark Martinec wrote: In a similar vein, I noticed also the following in our logs, with net.inet.tcp.log_in_vain=1. Looks like messages got concatenated somehow: Jan 25 01:37:53 mildred kernel: TCP: [2607:ff10:c5:509a::10]:26459 to [2001:1470:ff80::80:16]:4911 tcpflags 0x2;

Re: net.inet.udp.log_in_vain strange syslog reports

2017-02-15 Thread Mark Martinec
2017-02-06 18:04, Eric van Gyzen wrote: On 02/06/2017 10:19, Mark Martinec wrote: Hope the fix finds its way into 11.1 (or better yet, as a patch level in 10.0). Should I open a bug report? It will quite likely get into 11.1. As for a 10.x patch, you would have to ask re@ (I think), but

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread mokhi
Well, I'd like to offer help keeping it (because on a personal opinion, I'd like being compatible `:-D). But the reasons are pretty reasonable and convincing :-). I have no more objections against removing it when security risks involves. -- Best wishes, MMokhi.

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <20170215081430.gc58...@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff writes: >Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning that we keep it compilable. However, >I'm sure that no one checks the functionality. There are no regression >tests, and seems to be no users. And probably nobody ever bothered to

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

2017-02-15 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:56:29AM +0330, mokhi wrote: m> Is this removing is because no-interest on maintaining it? m> m> If it helps, I am working to use the `kern_* instead sys_*` as m> mentioned patch in that discussion suggests for svr4, if this helps. Well, we all "maintain" it, meaning