On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 15:57, Damien Miller wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Ted Unangst wrote:
What's better than a freelist? Four freelists!
Apart from moar = better, what's the motivation? Do you have a particular
attack in mind? The only thing I can think of where this change might help
is
From http://www.openbsd.org/errata55.html:
untrusted comment: signature from openbsd 5.5 base secret key
RWRGy8gxk9N9321DQnPP+9IApvSKgX2JT78ZuEZ9HWNUESOfE91CMPQIevj7Yrafs1Zc/KNELplMHCwmFTL8CBjPjuXfEG9y+gU=
OpenBSD 5.5 errata 5, May 1, 2014: An attacker can trigger generation
of an SSL alert
Starting today, we're going to try sending patches out via email
so you don't miss them.
Several previous errata have also been recently published for OpenBSD
5.4 and 5.5. We won't be mailing them out individually since they
aren't new, but you should check the web site for details.
Refer to
After sending my previous reply I noticed that you already committed
your diff, so here are my comments again in the form of a proper diff:
* Use NULL instead of casting 0 to pointer types
* Remove unnecessary (char *) cast on buf because buf was already
declared as char *
* Simplify if ((rc
Okay, the question is: why 4 ? why not 3 ? or 2 ? or 8 ?
Where do you stop ? how did you figure out that 4 was better ?
This looks a bit like hey, let's make our own crypto code, it ought to
work just fine, right ?
Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but
you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with
4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for
choosing 4 ?
Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but
you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with
4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for
choosing 4 ?
Why does Ted have to explain his heuristic?
Should
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 20:52, Marc Espie wrote:
Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but
you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with
4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for
choosing 4 ?
The
because it's better than one.
frankly, it's a starting point. if 8 or 42 is better we can tune from there.
or replace it with something that's better to do the same thing - if
that can be come up with. Do you have a better suggestion?
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net
so, vlan:
-calls ether_ifattach, which, last not least, sets if_type to IFT_ETHER
-right after set if_type to IFT_L2VLAN
-just to set it to if_ether again as soon as it gets configured
(parents can only be IFT_ETHER)
that is... pointless.
fwiw, this was the one and only use of IFT_L2VLAN in the
On 01/05/2014 18:10, Ted Unangst wrote:
Starting today, we're going to try sending patches out via email
so you don't miss them.
Several previous errata have also been recently published for OpenBSD
5.4 and 5.5. We won't be mailing them out individually since they
aren't new, but you should
On 2014/05/01 20:00, Jon Tibble wrote:
On 01/05/2014 18:10, Ted Unangst wrote:
Starting today, we're going to try sending patches out via email
so you don't miss them.
Several previous errata have also been recently published for OpenBSD
5.4 and 5.5. We won't be mailing them out
On 4/29/14, H??ctor Luis Gimbatti h...@etale.com.ar wrote:
The constant MFSNAMELEN as defined in:
lib/libc/sys/getfsstat.2:#define MFSNAMELEN 16
lib/libc/sys/statfs.2:#define MFSNAMELEN 16
sys/sys/mount.h: #define MFSNAMELEN 16
defines the fs type name and, according to
13 matches
Mail list logo
