automatic checking of source code
hi I just found http://mygcc.free.fr/ which is a project for automatic checking of source code for bugs (memory leaks, unreleased locks, null pointer dereferences). I recall there was some SoC project to achieve something similar but this is complete and ready to run... it might be of some interest for someone roman -- www.liberalnistrana.cz ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: odd behavior with geom - gmirror - read/write simultaneously
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 03:09:56PM -0300, Thiago Damas wrote: > Hi, > I'm having a odd behavior while using geom_mirror. > I have the following situation: > - RAID1 with 2 SATA disks > # gmirror status > NameStatus Components > mirror/home0 COMPLETE ad2 > ad3 > > - home0 as /home > # df -h > Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on > /dev/ad0s1a 1.9G 74M1.7G 4%/ > devfs 1.0K1.0K 0B 100%/dev > /dev/ad0s1d 989M 16K910M 0%/tmp > /dev/ad0s1e 7.7G1.9G5.2G27%/usr > /dev/ad0s1f 58G139M 53G 0%/var > /dev/mirror/home0s1c226G7.4G200G 4%/home > > I was testing the read/write speed on /home, with: > # dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/home/test.data bs=4m > While running this, gstat shows me what I wanted: > # gstat > L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name > 0230230 293831.9 0 00.0 42.8| ad0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 > 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.0 65.3| ad2 > 7196 0 00.0196 25040 16.6 65.4| ad3 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 > 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.2 65.4| mirror/home0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 > 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.2 65.4| mirror/home0s1 > 9192 0 00.0192 24529 22.0 66.6| mirror/home0s1c > > After that, I test the read speed: > # dd if=/home/test.data bs=4m of=/dev/null > # gstat > dT: 0.501 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1 > L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 > 1120120 153293.7 0 00.0 44.9| ad2 > 0122122 155843.5 0 00.0 43.1| ad3 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 > 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 88.4| mirror/home0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 > 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 88.7| mirror/home0s1 > 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 90.0| mirror/home0s1c > > And it shows again what was supposed to. > > Now, I test read/write simultaneously: > In on shell (1): > # dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/home/test.data bs=4m > After some time, in another shell(2) > # dd if=/home/test.data bs=4m of=/dev/null > And gstat shows me the following: > # gstat > dT: 0.501 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1 > L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 > 0158158 201833.0 0 00.0 47.6| ad2 > 1158158 201832.5 0 00.0 39.1| ad3 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 > 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 87.4| mirror/home0 > 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 > 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 87.8| mirror/home0s1 > 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 89.4| mirror/home0s1c > > > I'm having NO writes in home0; even hitting ^C in shell(1) hangs, > until I cancel the
FreeBSD Kernel Quality?
I came across the fallowing website: http://scan.coverity.com/ Looks like they check open source projects for source quality. They Have the fallowing listed: Project | Current # | Original # | Lines of Code | Defects / Defects Defects KLOC ++ FreeBSD 632 6351,582,166 0.399 NetBSD 2384 32305,087,378 0.469 Anyone know what version they are testing this on? Some may want to login and look at the problems they found. I filled out a Registration email to find out more. Anyone already registered and can say more about the code they are testing? -- --- Benjamin D Adams http://www.FreeBSDWorld.NET ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
setuid scripts wrapper (RFC, proposal)
There are some security problems with kernel-level script setuid execution which discourage from using it. The standard recommendation is to write a binary setuid wrapper for each script needed. But maybe it's better to use one simple, well reviewed and verified setuid wrapper for all common tasks? And to use it in the distribution or at least, as a package. I've tried to set up the stanard wrapper for our systems which does following: - verifies if scipt's file system allowed to run setuid scrits - clears all environment variables, or pass only desired, or set to values from hash-line in the script - closes all file descriptros > 2 if -c options is set - checks if script file is write permission for anyone http://suidscript.sply.org/suidscript/suidscript.c http://suidscript.sply.org/suidscript/suidscriptperl http://suidscript.sply.org/suidscript/test_perl http://suidscript.sply.org/ Is it strong enough? Maybe there is any slippery ground left? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fundraising for FreeBSD security development
On 30. mar. 2006, at 22.20, Colin Percival wrote: Slightly more than three years ago, I released FreeBSD Update, my first major contribution to FreeBSD. Since then, I have become a FreeBSD committer, joined the FreeBSD Security Team, released Portsnap, and become the FreeBSD Security Officer. However, as I have gone from being a graduate student at Oxford University -- busy writing my thesis -- to a researcher at Simon Fraser University -- busy doing research and writing papers -- my "to do" list of FreeBSD-related work has continued growing, and I have now come to realize that some of the items on that list will probably never be finished until I get a chance to work full-time on FreeBSD. I would like to take the chance to thank you for your work for FreeBSD! freebsd-update and portsnap are welcome innovations that make managing a large number of FreeBSD servers easier! I think the binary patch concept has enormous potential, and I look forward for the fruits FreeBSD will gather from it in the future. (My wet dream is freebsd-update for installed ports). I have to ask, if the fundraise succeeds, will some time be spent on providing freebsd-update support for amd64? :-) Frode Nordahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 15:15, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > >> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a. > > > >Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the > >a partition starts at the start of the slice to be confusing) with the > >actual disklabel table in sector 1 of the slice. > > The bit that threw me was that boot2 is 15 sectors long and ends in > sector 15. I gather it has a copy of boot1 embedded in it. Yes, there is now a /boot/boot file that is boot1 + boot2 glued together in a single blob. It used to be that boot1 was in sector 0 and boot2 in 2-15, but with ufs2 boot2 got slightly bigger, so we now make them a blob IIRC to get some extra space. phk@ did that change. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 14:53:55 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a. > >Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the >a partition starts at the start of the slice to be confusing) with the >actual disklabel table in sector 1 of the slice. The bit that threw me was that boot2 is 15 sectors long and ends in sector 15. I gather it has a copy of boot1 embedded in it. -- Peter Jeremy ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote: On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 12:14:29 -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote: If not operator, then maybe one configurable group, defaulting to operator. Sounds like a good idea. -- Peter Jeremy What group do NFS and SMBFS shares belong to? Mike "Silby" Silbersack ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Wed, 2006-Apr-05 12:14:29 -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Sergey Babkin wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab? >> Then the users can be simply given membership of this >> group to mount the devices. > >Why not just assume allowable users are in the "operator" group. Isn't >this what that group was designed for? That group was designed for people who ran backups - it's hard-coded in dump(8). >If not operator, then maybe one configurable group, defaulting to operator. Sounds like a good idea. -- Peter Jeremy ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: cloning a FreeBSD HDD
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:40, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Tue, 2006-Apr-04 11:12:03 +0100, Khaled Hussain wrote: > >Why does everyone talk about dump+restore as a pair? I thought it was > >possible just to dump a filesystem to a different hard disk i.e. > >dump -0a -f /dev/ad2 / > > It is. But /dev/ad2 will have a dumpfile on it, not a filesystem. > The only thing that can then read /dev/ad2 is restore. > > >Also, how can I find out which /boot/boot# file a freebsd system is using by > >default? > > None of the ones in the filesystem - these files are embedded into the > beginning of the hard disk. > > One of boot0, boot0sio or mbr is located in absolute sector 0 of the disk. > boot1 is located in sector 0 of the bootable slice > boot2 is located in the (I think) sectors 1-15 of partition a. Actually, boot1 + boot2 occupy sectors 0,2-15 of the bootable slice (the a partition starts at the start of the slice to be confusing) with the actual disklabel table in sector 1 of the slice. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
odd behavior with geom - gmirror - read/write simultaneously
Hi, I'm having a odd behavior while using geom_mirror. I have the following situation: - RAID1 with 2 SATA disks # gmirror status NameStatus Components mirror/home0 COMPLETE ad2 ad3 - home0 as /home # df -h Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 1.9G 74M1.7G 4%/ devfs 1.0K1.0K 0B 100%/dev /dev/ad0s1d 989M 16K910M 0%/tmp /dev/ad0s1e 7.7G1.9G5.2G27%/usr /dev/ad0s1f 58G139M 53G 0%/var /dev/mirror/home0s1c226G7.4G200G 4%/home I was testing the read/write speed on /home, with: # dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/home/test.data bs=4m While running this, gstat shows me what I wanted: # gstat L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name 0230230 293831.9 0 00.0 42.8| ad0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.0 65.3| ad2 7196 0 00.0196 25040 16.6 65.4| ad3 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.2 65.4| mirror/home0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 9192 0 00.0192 24529 21.2 65.4| mirror/home0s1 9192 0 00.0192 24529 22.0 66.6| mirror/home0s1c After that, I test the read speed: # dd if=/home/test.data bs=4m of=/dev/null # gstat dT: 0.501 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1 L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 1120120 153293.7 0 00.0 44.9| ad2 0122122 155843.5 0 00.0 43.1| ad3 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 88.4| mirror/home0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 88.7| mirror/home0s1 1242242 309133.7 0 00.0 90.0| mirror/home0s1c And it shows again what was supposed to. Now, I test read/write simultaneously: In on shell (1): # dd if=/dev/ad0 of=/home/test.data bs=4m After some time, in another shell(2) # dd if=/home/test.data bs=4m of=/dev/null And gstat shows me the following: # gstat dT: 0.501 flag_I 50us sizeof 240 i -1 L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1 0158158 201833.0 0 00.0 47.6| ad2 1158158 201832.5 0 00.0 39.1| ad3 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1a 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1b 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1c 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1d 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1e 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad0s1f 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad2s1 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 87.4| mirror/home0 0 0 0 00.0 0 00.00.0| ad3s1 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 87.8| mirror/home0s1 1315315 403672.8 0 00.0 89.4| mirror/home0s1c I'm having NO writes in home0; even hitting ^C in shell(1) hangs, until I cancel the dd command in shell(2). I think its happening some problem with geom code . Can someone verify this? I using 6.1 PRERELEASE, with GENERIC kernel. --- Thiago ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing
Re: patchset-10 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:46:59PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote: > It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of > the unionfs patchset-10. > > Patchset-10: >For 7-current > http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff > >For 6.x > http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p10.diff Thanks for your continued work! I get this panic with mount_unionfs -b: kdb_backtrace(ebf369e8,c056b59a,c06c905a,c06e297e,c72d7000) at kdb_backtrace+0x29 vfs_badlock(c06c905a,c06e297e,c72d7000) at vfs_badlock+0x11 assert_vop_locked(c72d7000,c06e297e,c72d7000,c06e297e) at assert_vop_locked+0x4a VOP_OPEN_APV(c0710da0,ebf36a28) at VOP_OPEN_APV+0x8e union_open(ebf36a78,ebf36b20,c74e0930,ebf36ae4,c04f884b) at union_open+0xe2 VOP_OPEN_APV(c06f83a0,ebf36a78) at VOP_OPEN_APV+0x9b exec_check_permissions(ebf36b90,9,1,0,0) at exec_check_permissions+0xeb do_execve(c6658bd0,ebf36c60,0,ebf36c60,c6658bd0) at do_execve+0x18a kern_execve(c6658bd0,ebf36c60,0) at kern_execve+0x7c execve(c6658bd0,ebf36d04,c6bb5d38,c,c6658bd0) at execve+0x2f syscall(3b,3b,3b,bfbfe90c,0) at syscall+0x27e Xint0x80_syscall() at Xint0x80_syscall+0x1f --- syscall (59, FreeBSD ELF32, execve), eip = 0x280d3dfb, esp = 0xbfbfe35c, ebp = 0xbfbfe808 --- VOP_OPEN: 0xc72d7000 is not locked but should be Kris pgpT06o7pznR0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Sergey Babkin wrote: > > Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab? > Then the users can be simply given membership of this > group to mount the devices. Why not just assume allowable users are in the "operator" group. Isn't this what that group was designed for? I certainly setup my boxes to give users permission to access the soundcard and other "operators of this machine" devices... If not operator, then maybe one configurable group, defaulting to operator. Admins who want special circumstances can use devfs rules to set the group for certain devices. This way, we use unix-isms such as: 1). can the user mount filesystems? (vfs.usermount) 2). does the user have permissions to the device? (e.g. group-read/write to said device) 3). does the user have permissions to the mountpoint? (e.g. user read/write/execute) -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Function calling
On 4/4/06, Lutz Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > But when the program uses the libc I have more RET than call ... > > What's the good way to find function calls and return ? > > I'm doing something similar at the moment, utilizing the Branch Single > Stepping feature available in most x86 CPUs and came across that same problem. > > While debugging the issue, I found out that the dynamic linker "calls" > requested functions by returning to them. I believe this is done because this > is a (the only) generic way to "call" a variable addresses without destroying > register contents. Any further info or a confirmation of that guess would be > much appreciated. > > --- the code in /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/i386/rtld_start.S: > /* > * Binder entry point. Control is transferred to here by code in the PLT. > * On entry, there are two arguments on the stack. In ascending address > * order, they are (1) "obj", a pointer to the calling object's Obj_Entry, > * and (2) "reloff", the byte offset of the appropriate relocation entry > * in the PLT relocation table. > * > * We are careful to preserve all registers, even the the caller-save > * registers. That is because this code may be invoked by low-level > * assembly-language code that is not ABI-compliant. > */ > .align 4 > .globl _rtld_bind_start > .type _rtld_bind_start,@function > _rtld_bind_start: > pushf # Save eflags > pushl %eax# Save %eax > pushl %edx# Save %edx > pushl %ecx# Save %ecx > pushl 20(%esp)# Copy reloff argument > pushl 20(%esp)# Copy obj argument > > call[EMAIL PROTECTED] # Transfer control to the binder > /* Now %eax contains the entry point of the function being called. */ > > addl$8,%esp # Discard binder arguments > movl%eax,20(%esp) # Store target over obj argument > popl%ecx# Restore %ecx > popl%edx# Restore %edx > popl%eax# Restore %eax > popf# Restore eflags > leal4(%esp),%esp# Discard reloff, do not change eflags > ret # "Return" to target address > --- > > Lutz > > > Thanks for your answer, it's more difficult than I thought :( ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote: I wasn't serious. Sudo is fine by me as well. However, having something that is in the base system (and not in ports) to allow user mounts would be neat. Still, KDE and GNOME and even xorg are in ports as well, so that point is not a really strong one either. The only thing that still nags me about the sudo solution is that if you have to use sudo anyway, why was vfs.usermount even implemented in the first place? Using sudo makes it redundant. Well, there are some notions that vfs.usermount captures that other variations currently don't. One of those is the idea that the kernel will have direct access to the credentials used to authorize the mount, rather than the kernel being passed a root credential. This becomes interesting when there are file systems without an integrated notion of file ownership (such as msdosfs), or for file systems that will make use of user keying material or access files and services using the privileges of the user (i.e., distributed file systems). For example, NFS uses the privileges of the user performing the mount to create sockets, access the network, etc. Whether this ends up being important in the big picture is another question, but there is an important semantic difference there from the perspective of kernel access control. Robert N M Watson ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
patchset-10 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of the unionfs patchset-10. Patchset-10: For 7-current http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff For 6.x http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p10.diff Changes in unionfs-p10.diff - Fixed a problem that does not unlock a vnode around some treatments of VOP_RENAME. - Added workaround implementation for panic by umount(8) -f. - Changed around VOP_ADVLOCK treatments to make shadow file into upper layer always to keep lock consistency. The documents of those unionfs patches: http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/ (English) http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/index-ja.html (Japanese) Attentions: We are getting union_getwritemount rewrite work still now. The p-10 is intermediate step implementation, and some code in not according to style(9) source code style. I want to get active unionfs patchset users to test it. If you want stable implementation, please wait until p-11. However, of course, p-10 is stable rather than p-9 already :) Thanks -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Jan Grant wrote: > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if > > > > vfs.usermount is 1? > > > pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may > > > be superior to simply using sudo? > > > > Using sudo is a hack? :) > > I don't buy that aesthetic argument. I wasn't serious. Sudo is fine by me as well. However, having something that is in the base system (and not in ports) to allow user mounts would be neat. Still, KDE and GNOME and even xorg are in ports as well, so that point is not a really strong one either. The only thing that still nags me about the sudo solution is that if you have to use sudo anyway, why was vfs.usermount even implemented in the first place? Using sudo makes it redundant. -- stefan http://stsp.in-berlin.de PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if > > > vfs.usermount is 1? > > pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may > > be superior to simply using sudo? > > Using sudo is a hack? :) Using sudo is using a small, well-inspected tool to do a well-defined job as part of a toolchain. Stringing such tools together is where the unix environment derives its expressive power from. So I'd second the question; I don't buy that aesthetic argument. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Solution: (n) a watered-down version of something neat. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
>From: Stefan Sperling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >What are admins supposed to do on systems with more than, say, a hundred >users. Having to add a line to /etc/fstab for every user is of course >scriptable, but that does not make it less insane. Would it make sense to be able to specify a group in fstab? Then the users can be simply given membership of this group to mount the devices. -SB ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fundraising for FreeBSD security development
Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In terms of cross-border payments, this is always > difficult. You might want to look at one of the > cross-border specialists like Kagi.com or > moneybookers.com or the digital gold currencies. OK, thanks. But it's not only the Colin issue. The FreeBSD project also can't be sponsored from here. -- One cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk Tacunka Witco ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fundraising for FreeBSD security development
Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Donations can be sent by paypal to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; if you would > prefer to send a cheque (which is probably only worthwhile for cheques > in Canadian or US dollars), please contact me by email to obtain my > mailing address. In either case, please let me know if you wish to > remain anonymous. Paypal doesn't work in all the countries, like here in Croatia where I'm from. So the rest of the 3rd world :), can't support anything about FreeBSD. I'd prefer if I can pay you with credit card without paypal. OpenBSD have it. So can you. -- One cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk Tacunka Witco ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Programs not accepting input?
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > The focus management and the highlighting of the window manager > > decoration are not physically connected in any way, so a bug in the > > window manager might cause it to do the highlighting but forget to > > give the focus to the application. > > But mouse focus and keyboard focus are the same, right? The windows > respond to the mouse, but not to the keyboard. There is no mouse focus. The mouse events are delivered to whatever window happens to be under the mouse pointer. Well, unless a pointer grab is in effect, but that's a separate story. > The remainder of your reply seems to build on the assumption that > there is no focus. I'll leave it there in case I misunderstood and > you want to refer to it. No, the remainder describes the case when the focus works correctly but the mapping from keycodes to keysyms gets somehow broken, so that the app gets the keyboard events but then it can't translate them into the text strings. Sorry, I couldn't look for the programs yet. -SB > > To debug that you can add debugging printout to the WM. Or I've had > > a script that sort of decoded the X protocol, so if you can get the > > dump of these (maybe with ktrace), you can decode the dump and see > > what happens with the focus. I'll look for it in my archives. > > > > If no, it might be something with the keyboard event translation to > > keysyms/text. You can debug this by writing a test program that > > would do it own dispatch loop - i.e. call XEvent() and then > > XtDispatchEvent() (or some close names - I might not remember them > > right), and print the debugging messages. So if you see that > > XEvent() is getting events but then nothing comes out of dispatching > > them, then the translation is broken somewhere. > > > > I might be able to find this kind of a program > > in my archives too, I'll look around. > > thanks. > > > BTW, one place where the keyboard events might disappear is the > > Input Method handling code. But I don't think that you run any Input > > Methods. > > Not explicitly. > > Greg > -- > See complete headers for address and phone numbers. > > > -- >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
keymaps
I need to understand and write keymaps. I have read kbdcontrol(1) and kbdmap(5), but these two is too superficial. Is there another document? These manuals do not explain for example: How to make "Alt+a" acting as sequence "Meta a"? "Alt+a" acts in other way, than "a" pressed after the key marked as "alock" in keymap. So what is alock? When a locked key is unlocked? Should I describe scan codes 128-255? (Some standard keymaps do this, but some standard keymaps do not.) How kbdmap affects on LEDs? and so one and so forth. I have asked this question in freebsd-questions already. No response. So, I decided to ask here. Elisej Babenko mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Re: Programs not accepting input?
>Same here. As mentioned in the original message, I can use the mouse >to open a new window under firefox. The new window will accept >keyboard input, the old one won't. It's almost as if it's deadlocking >on input. > >Reminder: my final question was "how do I go about debugging this >problem?". Does it happen with any kind of programs? If yes, can you reproduce it with "xev"? If yes, it would probably be something focus-related (and you'd be able to see that the Focus event is not coming in). The focus management and the highlighting of the window manager decoration are not physically connected in any way, so a bug in the window manager might cause it to do the highlighting but forget to give the focus to the application. To debug that you can add debugging printout to the WM. Or I've had a script that sort of decoded the X protocol, so if you can get the dump of these (maybe with ktrace), you can decode the dump and see what happens with the focus. I'll look for it in my archives. If no, it might be something with the keyboard event translation to keysyms/text. You can debug this by writing a test program that would do it own dispatch loop - i.e. call XEvent() and then XtDispatchEvent() (or some close names - I might not remember them right), and print the debugging messages. So if you see that XEvent() is getting events but then nothing comes out of dispatching them, then the translation is broken somewhere. I might be able to find this kind of a program in my archives too, I'll look around. BTW, one place where the keyboard events might disappear is the Input Method handling code. But I don't think that you run any Input Methods. -SB ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: RFC: Adding a ``user'' mount option
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:52:17PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > So why not have GNOME/KDE create mount points for the user if > > vfs.usermount is 1? > pardon my ignorance, but how any of those methods described earlier may > be superior to simply using sudo? Using sudo is a hack? :) -- stefan http://stsp.in-berlin.de PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
