Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT

2002-03-13 Thread Ed Hall

Exception-handling is broken with -O in -stable, and has been for years.
FreeBSD is one of the few systems that use setjmp/longjmp stack unwinds
to implement exceptions, so when the GCC folks broke that path, it was
never fixed.  There are supposedly patches floating around that fix the
problem, but they either didn't work as advertised or the ball got dropped.

This problem should exist in -current since I think FreeBSD finally drops
setjmp/longjmp stack unwinds and goes to dwarf 2 unwinds, which do work
(and which are used by the GCC 2.95 port, which also works but which
isn't compatible with /usr/lib/libstdc++.{a,so}).

This issue is why Yahoo! has to use its own build of GCC, and I doubt
we're the only ones...

-Ed



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT

2002-03-13 Thread Ed Hall

I wrote:

: This problem should exist in -current since I think FreeBSD finally drops
   ^^
That should be shouldn't.  I shouldn't post in a hurry (like I'm doing
now).

-Ed



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message



Re: entropy reseeding is totally broken

2000-10-26 Thread Ed Hall

In real life, machines don't always get rebooted in a completely
controlled fashion (panic, power failure, etc.).  Anything that
makes a reboot longer or less reliable is a definite non-starter.

I can guarantee you, if the current /dev/random code isn't fixed before
it makes STABLE, folks running servers 24/7 are going to rip it right
out.

-Ed




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



No Subject

2000-10-26 Thread Ed Hall

Doug Barton wrote:
:   Pending Mark's approval, I'd like to suggest we add a cron job to
: dump X k of data from /dev/random to a file (/boot/.periodic_entropy
: maybe?) and use that, AND ${entropy_file:/var/db/entropy} to reseed at
: boot, and only do the "long, annoying" failover process if neither file
: exists. The only remaining questions would be how many k of data to dump
: how often.

How about skipping the "long, annoying failover process" altogether and
simply logging to the console that the entropy reseeding process was
incomplete?  Forcing an indeterminate delay to gather entropy is more
than a little paternalistic.

I've little doubt of /dev/random's theoretical soundness.  But a
theoretical boost in security won't justify an actual reduction in
availability to many folks.

-Ed




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Re: entropy reseeding is totally broken

2000-10-26 Thread Ed Hall

Doug Barton wrote:
:   Pending Mark's approval, I'd like to suggest we add a cron job to
: dump X k of data from /dev/random to a file (/boot/.periodic_entropy
: maybe?) and use that, AND ${entropy_file:/var/db/entropy} to reseed at
: boot, and only do the "long, annoying" failover process if neither file
: exists. The only remaining questions would be how many k of data to dump
: how often.

How about skipping the "long, annoying failover process" altogether and
simply logging to the console that the entropy reseeding process was
incomplete?  Forcing an indeterminate delay to gather entropy is more
than a little paternalistic.

I've little doubt of /dev/random's theoretical soundness.  But a
theoretical boost in security won't justify an actual reduction in
availability to many folks.

-Ed




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Re: MAX_UID ?

2000-03-13 Thread Ed Hall

Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: This is marvellous in it's simplicity of interface.
: 
: Yet, using sizeof(char) and assuming that it's going to be 1, strikes me
: like a dangerous thing to do.  I have never heard of machines where this
: isn't true, but I seem to recall that the comp.lang.c FAQ mentions this
: somewhere.  I'll look it up tomorrow, since it's getting too late...

In both C and C++, sizeof(T) is defined to be the size of T in terms of the
size of a char, so by definition sizeof(char) == 1.

You can look it up (for C) at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q7.8.html

For C++, see section 4.6 of The C++ Programming Language.

-Ed




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message