Re: Possible error on swat(8) man page on OpenBSD 4.0?
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez wrote: After install samba from ports (samba-3.0.21bp4) i can see in the swat(8) man page: In /etc/inetd.conf you should add a line like this: swat stream tcp nowait.400 root /usr/local/samba/sbin/swat swat But swat binary is, actually, on /usr/local/libexec/swat and not on /usr/local/samba/sbin/swat. This should be fixed in 4.1. -- Antoine
best userland visibility IDE/ATA hotswap-compatible controller
poking archives, i have the impression that ami(4) family has the best chance of being the card with the greatest degree of userland visibility, but wanted to check if that's the case. need a low-profile ATA (parallel) controller who can take four drives. it'd be cool if it does hardware raid as long as i'd have the ability to see (from userland, bioctl/hw.sensors) if a drive failed. it seems that there's nothing with userland support for interacting with card BIOS raid management stuff (create/delete/modify an array), but as long as the hardware would take care of auto rebuild onto any hotspares i've configured, that's fine (the bioctl hotspare promotion seems neat). above all, and tbh i don't know if this is something that is drive-specific, controller-specific, driver-specific, or some combination of those, i need to be able to do hotswaps. machine is a Rackable Systems c2004[1], and currently has a twe(4) in it, which, by virtue of the zero userland visibility, i'm looking to replace. currently, if i yank a drive, everything's OK, but when i put it back in, the HD access light goes solid on the drive and the front panel for long intervals of time and i end up in ddb eventually. i'm assuming this may be in large part due to 3ware and the non-public thing... i'm also fine with doing RAIDFrame, so it doesn't _need_ to be a hardware raid controller, but if it is one, it would be nice if it played with OpenBSD as optimally as anything else currently can. if any specific model numbers (hotswap/PATA/low-profile/4 drives) come to mind, you'll be my hero upon sharing them G. [1] - http://www.rackables.com/products/c2004.htm -- jared
Re: spamdb: convert greylisted addresses to whitelisted servers?
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:38:51PM -0400, Trash Compactor wrote: And since the greylisted entry doesn't see anymore activity, after the 4 hours elapse, it just quietly bows out and exits... stage-left even! /Jason spamd used to reaper any outstanding GREYs when an IP ascended to WHITE status, but this behaviour changed somewhere near the time the sync protocol showed up. the detrement is that the db file might be a bit bigger, the benefit is that you get to still have access to that GREY data to see what various hosts are up to. while running spamd(8) on a host that took a very high volume of email, after about a week i was seeing around 30 WHITE entries and about 25 GREYs, so leaving the old data around and letting it expire out naturally is not nearly as big of a capacity issue as i had first thought. -- jared
Re: bcw(4) is gone
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD community. quoth the Steven Harms: There are two roads, the high and the low road. I am not sure why an adult (assuming) needs to be educated on this. High road? Is that how you would describe Theo's handling of this situation? The guy took code and relicensed it. That sucks. We know. The guy didn't send an email privately first. That sucks. We know. But instead of trying to work with him, and educated him (since he does do a ton of work on free software), Oh no? Read the thread again: From: Michael Buesch: We'd like to offer you to start cooperating with us From: Michael Buesch: We would not be opposed to relicensing parts of our code under the BSD license on an explicit case-by-case base. From: Theo de Raadt: Do you feel that Marcus should give up his efforts? From: Joseph Jezak: To say it clearly: No! From: Joseph Jezak: As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method was maintained. To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers regarding clarification of the specification, but I would welcome any questions they might have. So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks? Michael effectively destroys him. Eh? Destroys him? Are you drinking the same kool-aid as Theo? It was Marcus that had a hissy and deleted the bloody code. A response, I might add, I see a lot from my six-year old. Nope. Michael asked politely to have a quick resolution to the issue. It was all Theo with the personal attacks. Here are some more choice quotes from your fearless project leader, taking the high-road, of course: You are a very poor example of humankind. You're no big man. You're main characteristic is 'bully'. You are an inhuman asshole We don't trust Linux people anymore. I especially like that last one. So you would write off an entire community because of the actions of one guy? A perfectly measured and reasonable response, taking the high road of course. Thats fair. Whether code is GPL or BSD, we all are in the same sea, and our boats are pretty damn close. You are right. Too bad Theo feels the need to throw mines in the water. Look: I'm not religious about these issues, I just like Unix and free software, and I don't give a rats ass at this point who is wrong or right about the original issue. To my mind, both acted plenty dumb, but this episode has opened my eyes to the fact that I want nothing to do with your community. Theo's (and Marcus') response is absolutely shameful and disgusting. Granted, I'm a nobody, and my words don't mean shit, but you _all_ should have a good long think about how Theo's reaction to this plays to others in the greater OSS community, and beyond. Wasn't his biggest beef about Michael's public disclosure and lack of respect? Causing OpenBSD embarrassment? Well what the hell do you call Theo's public blowout which included both personal attacks and plenty of creative misreading that could easily be called propaganda? (Hint: No one said 'thief' but Theo) Is that what you call the high road? Don't bother responding, I'm gone. Have fun with your Broadcom chips -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org ...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected... - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:52:25PM +0200, Karl Sjvdahl - dunceor wrote: On 4/5/07, RedShift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got this linksys SRW2016 managed 16 port gigabit switch at home. The only problem with it, is that the firmware well eh, sucks. The telnet interface can't configure everything (just basic setup, you can't even set up SNMP or VLANs) and the webinterface only works correctly with Internet Explorer. Now during the bootup messages I see that the processor is an ARM946E-S. Since OpenBSD should run on ARM processors (armish port?) I wonder if it would be possible to replace the current firmware with an OpenBSD install. I don't think the ARM 946 has a MMU which I'm pretty it needs to run OpenBSD. So I think you are out of luck. Don't know if Linux runs on systems without MMU but it's worth a try. NetBSD says it will run anything, will it run this? Doug. Well there was a proposol for SoC at NetBSD last year to get NetBSD running at a computer lacking MMU but I don't think any signed up for that mission so I still think that either NetBSD or the other *BSD can run on a computer without MMU. BR dunceor
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 08:13:39PM -0400, Gordon Willem Klok wrote: Software is developed by PEOPLE (plural), people dont work very well together when one of them is acting like a five year old. gwk Isn't everybody in this discussion like a five year old? If you look at the thread it makes ping-pong-ping-pong from both sides. Neither the BSD side nor the BCW side is really really fair the hole time. Both sides are like rocks.. Why don't do a cut? Let Marcus and Michael work on this! s -- GnuPG: 5755FB64 Per aspera ad astra.
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
Diana is right. Newer switches uses ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) to do the switching. Making the MAC Address lookup table basically hardwired into the hardware. That is why switches are basically wire speed unlike a software bridge which is slow in comparison. Glenn, I would really doubt that you will be able to put OpenBSD or NetBSD onto this Linksys switch. The firmware (boot) and the software work together very closely on switches. If the firmware and software do not much up, you can run across problems also. I would check on Linksys.com to see if they have newer firmware and software then you have on your switch. Most managable switches will allow you to setup VLANs and SNMP through the web interface. Good Luck, rc On 4/5/07, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Sam Fourman Jr.
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Sam Fourman Jr. I have already done this. In essence a switch is nothing more but a big bridge. Ofcourse, with a regular computer you are limited on how many ports you can use, and since a switch is made for this goal... http://www.uclinux.org/ is a collection of patches to run linux without an MMU. It does have some restrictions though. I've tried to analyze the original linksys firmware images, but it's just a big heap of binary code. In both images (it has a boot and a software image) the letters RNTP occur, which could be led to runtop. Does anyone know about this runtop software? Thanks, Glenn
Anybody using EJBCA on OpenBSD?
Hello OpenBSD community. Is there anyone using EJBCA on OpenBSD? If thats the case: Problems? Installation? Good or Bad? Any other CA software working better on OpenBSD? //AJ
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
RedShift wrote: Hello all, I've got this linksys SRW2016 managed 16 port gigabit switch at home. The only problem with it, is that the firmware well eh, sucks. The telnet interface can't configure everything (just basic setup, you can't even set up SNMP or VLANs) and the webinterface only works correctly with Internet Explorer. Now during the bootup messages I see that the processor is an ARM946E-S. Since OpenBSD should run on ARM processors (armish port?) I wonder if it would be possible to replace the current firmware with an OpenBSD install. To upgrade the firmware, you need two images, a boot image and software image. But before I get started, would this even be possible? I'm already having a hard time screwing open the device :-(. You have to keep in mind I'm no good at programming, I know very little C beyond hello world, let alone booting such a piece of hardware. Thanks, Glenn Update: I misread the bootup information, it says it has an 88E6218 with ARM946E-S. The 88E6218 seems to be a marvell chip commonly used in cheap routers for home.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07 1:26 AM, Andris Delfino wrote: First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In the most publicly and shameful way. A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do with your code, the only reason why your name as an author is in the code is because without that anybody could claim that's my code pay me, your name is there just to prevent other people put claims on it, not for your honour. BSD is about maximum open-ness and making it impossible to violate copyright. B) If you don't have the decency to inquire before you do harm to people, even to a type like Saddam Houssein you are plain stupid asshole. The whole situation makes me think of the sneaky guy in this one: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/12523/f0abd313/index.html +++chefren
Re: Redirect traffic through VPN
On 4/5/07, Dag Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matiss Miglans wrote: Hi good people ! I need to make connection from server witch is in LAN1 to server witch is in LAN3. And I need to make another connection from that same server witch is in LAN3 to that same server witch is in LAN1. There is 3 different company Ethernets, and I need to make this connection trough my company. There is no way to make direct VPN from LAN1 to LAN3 - Business etc. |---LAN1-| |OpenBSD--| |--LAN2--| |-10.210.1.0/24--|---|--Router/pf/vpn--||-192.168.0.0/24-| || |-| || | | VPN IPsec over public Internet. | |---LAN3--||---Netscreen 5xt---| |-192.168.30.0/29-|--|---Router/pf/vpn---| |-||---| This VPN is from LAN2 to LAN3 I will make nat,rdr or binat, because I can't give direct access. I need to control what, where and how can connect. I tried to make redirect like this: rdr from 10.210.1.2 to 10.210.1.1 - 192.168.30.1 But, OpenBSD box, cant see the LAN3 network, or Nestcreen box internal IP. - I tried ping, telnet, ssh etc. Of course I can see that all, if i connect from LAN2 or LAN3. How can I see this server in LAN3 from OpenBSD box ? Or maybe there is better way to do that ? In my pf.conf is no deny rulle There is my ipsec.conf: ike esp from 192.168.0.0/24 to 192.168.30.0/29 \ local x.x.x.x peer x.x.x.x \ main auth hmac-md5 enc 3des \ quick auth hmac-md5 enc 3des \ psk xxx This is OpenBSD snapshot from 2007.26. Jan. (or something that way). Best regards Matiss So you have working VPN from LAN2 to LAN# and reverse? You can not NAT on the same box you run ipsec on ... Nat is applied first, then a routing decision is made and if your ip addr are outside your encryption 'domain' your traffic will not traverse the tunnel. Are LAN1 and LAN2 really hosted off the same firewall? If so then the statement no no VPN between LAN1 and LAN3 is silly. In the layout as described you need to setup a VPN from LAN1 to LAN3. You could possibly introduce an additional firewall to do nating prior to VPN but that would be again silly. Matiss, There are three ways that you can connect to the servers: 1. VPN (IPSEC) 2. 1 to 1 NAT (bidirectional NAT). Opened to the world, if not properly firewalled. This will have to be done on both sides. 3. Port forwarding (redirection with pf) Opened to the world, if not properly firewalled. This will have to be done on both sides. I would choose 1. because the traffic is going to be encrypted going over the Internet and still behind your firewall and NAT without being opened to the world. I tried to make redirect like this: rdr from 10.210.1.2 to 10.210.1.1 - 192.168.30.1 Implemented incorrectly: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/rdr.html or if you want binat: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/nat.html#binat You can not NAT on the same box you run ipsec on ... Nat is applied first, then a routing decision is made and if your ip addr are outside your encryption 'domain' your traffic will not traverse the tunnel. From my experience, this is not correct. You can have NAT and IPSEC running on the same box. IPSEC takes precedence over NAT and routing. Of course, NAT over routing. rc
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
Let us know if you get this working. I would love to run OpenBSD on my switches. PF running at wire speed would be beyond awesome. rc On 4/6/07, RedShift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Sam Fourman Jr. I have already done this. In essence a switch is nothing more but a big bridge. Ofcourse, with a regular computer you are limited on how many ports you can use, and since a switch is made for this goal... http://www.uclinux.org/ is a collection of patches to run linux without an MMU. It does have some restrictions though. I've tried to analyze the original linksys firmware images, but it's just a big heap of binary code. In both images (it has a boot and a software image) the letters RNTP occur, which could be led to runtop. Does anyone know about this runtop software? Thanks, Glenn
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, darren kirby wrote: This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD community. Ok, as I feel part of it, I will respond to this. High road? Is that how you would describe Theo's handling of this situation? Theo reacted _to_ the handling of the situation. So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks? What is the problem with you people... isn't it clear that as soon as the first mail was sent PUBLIC and to a whole bunch of people the rest is just blablabla! a lot from my six-year old. Nope. Michael asked politely to have a quick resolution to the issue. It was all Theo with the personal attacks. All I have to say is that next time you make a mistake, I hope someone will make sure a maximum of people know about it so that they can point fingers at you and write a shitty article on some stupid Internet so-called news site. Of course, someone could just have told you dude, watch out, you've made a mistake here and this would have ended right where it began... but no, this is so much fun to flame people. I especially like that last one. So you would write off an entire community because of the actions of one guy? A perfectly measured and reasonable response, taking the high road of course. Do you also call the first mail sent to many many many people a perfectly measured and reasonable post? Wasn't his biggest beef about Michael's public disclosure and lack of respect? Causing OpenBSD embarrassment? Well what the hell do you call Theo's public blowout which included both personal attacks and plenty of creative misreading that could easily be called propaganda? (Hint: No one said 'thief' but Theo) Is that what you call the high road? It is how I call defending against inhuman reaction. Don't bother responding, I'm gone. Have fun with your Broadcom chips Don't tell me what to do. I answer if I want to... and please, don't come back. I usually don't answer to those kinds of messages, but seeing how people are stupid, brain damaged and obstinate makes me really pissed! Don't they understand the situation on purpose??? -- Antoine
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
I'd saw that everyone had running openbsd on a hp procurve 5300xl switch on this modul here. http://www.hp.com/rnd/accessories/J8162A_/accessory.htm but i don't know some details. it would be very interesting. Thomas On Friday, 6. April 2007 09:14, you wrote: Diana is right. Newer switches uses ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) to do the switching. Making the MAC Address lookup table basically hardwired into the hardware. That is why switches are basically wire speed unlike a software bridge which is slow in comparison. Glenn, I would really doubt that you will be able to put OpenBSD or NetBSD onto this Linksys switch. The firmware (boot) and the software work together very closely on switches. If the firmware and software do not much up, you can run across problems also. I would check on Linksys.com to see if they have newer firmware and software then you have on your switch. Most managable switches will allow you to setup VLANs and SNMP through the web interface. Good Luck, rc On 4/5/07, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Sam Fourman Jr.
snort alert timestamps are close to random
I'm running snort on OpenBSD 4.0 amd64. I've tried 2.4.5 among the packages, and built 2.6.1.4 from the source (are there any special configure options I should use?). Also I've tried many combinations of rules: registered user, community and bleeding-edge rules. The same result. For example, when I run nmap for the TargetIP, TCP Portscan alert logs report the datetime as follows (shown only the timestamp lines): 04/05-15:55:09.000174 SrcIP - TargetIP 04/05-20:14:48.000174 SrcIP - TargetIP 04/06-06:11:01.000174 SrcIP - TargetIP 04/05-19:09:59.000169 SrcIP - TargetIP 04/06-00:22:37.000174 SrcIP - TargetIP The datetime was around 11:48 AM on Apr 06, +/-2mins for each nmap run (order of runs is as shown). Granted the date is within 24 hours, but apparently the hour is, well, random. If I use tcpdump style logs, I see that the datetimes reported there are correct. Also, I've used BASE, it reports Timestamp as all 0's. But I deem that this may be due to something else, probably the database time format, I don't know. (To be exact, I've used and built both plain and mysql versions of snort, with the same result.) Could somebody tell me what I may be doing wrong? Any links I wasn't able to find? Thanks,
Re: bcw(4) is gone
Would it be wrong to develop software using existing GPL'ed code as a starting point. And bit by bit rewrite the code until you have rewritten all of it. Then releasing the final code under an BSD license? *shrug* Personally I consider that a derivative work and try to avoid it, though practically if your rewrite is different enough nobody would ever know. Maybe this is the other side of the blob fight; we should be just as eager to make sure there is no improperly-copied GPL (or APL or MPL or...) code in the tree as we are to make sure there are no mysterious hunks of binary code (why exactly these issues always seem to come to a head about wireless drivers as opposed to other parts of the tree is beyond me -- Intel never requires its sound or ethernet controllers to have non-freely-redistributable firmware). IMO this is a vindication of the principle that being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong: Michael should have handled this differently (especially given the state of the driver at the time), but he does have a responsibility to protect his license. It seems to be a big concern to him that the hardware vendor not be able to use his software, so the GPL is the correct license for his work. I have trouble imagining a situation where I wouldn't want a hardware vendor to use my code if it worked better, but he's the author so it's his decision to make. Weldon [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: upgrade from 3.1 to 4.0
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:36:22AM +0600, Artyom Goryainov wrote: Hi, all! How can I painlessly upgrade OpenBSD 3.1 to 4.0 without reinstalling all system and soft? You can't. Far too much changed in between; it's a better idea to just reinstall, upgrading no less than nine times just isn't a winning proposition. Here's what I would do: 1. Find etc31.tgz 2. Unzip it 3. Diff /etc and the contents of etc31.tgz 4. Make a good backup of the old machine 5. Reinstall (preferably 4.1 - pre-order now!) 6. Manually merge the diff from step 3 (automatic patching is not feasible for most files) 7. Test that everything works Note that you *will* have to do some work to get everything working again; most software (BIND, Apache) included with OpenBSD has been upgraded quite a bit, for instance. And the same is true of most of the OpenBSD system; OpenBSD is rather conservative, but not *that* conservative. Joachim -- TFMotD: perlstyle (1) - Perl style guide
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
On 2007/04/06 10:26, RedShift wrote: RedShift wrote: I've got this linksys SRW2016 managed 16 port gigabit switch at home. The only problem with it, is that the firmware well eh, sucks. The telnet interface can't configure everything (just basic setup, you can't even set up SNMP or VLANs) This is pretty normal, they don't want to erode sales of what they call 'enterprise' devices. and the webinterface only works correctly with Internet Explorer. Was IE stated as a requirement? If not, you probably have good grounds to return it. Update: I misread the bootup information, it says it has an 88E6218 with ARM946E-S. The 88E6218 seems to be a marvell chip commonly used in cheap routers for home. Most of this class of switch (i.e. low-cost gigabit, intended to be managed by a web browser) seem to use Marvell or Broadcom chips, neither company are renowned for freely available programming information. That's even before you start on the ASICs.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Andris Delfino wrote: First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In the most publicly and shameful way. How does this militant attitude work alongside your preference for the BSD license? If another free software developer is violating your license, would you publicly shame someone who is probably working for similar reasons to yourself, or would you give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a private do you know what you are doing? email and try to work things out like gentlepeople? I know of at least one GPL project that violates the license (BSD) of some code that I wrote. If I ever cared to enforce that license then I would certainly be polite first. -d
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:54:03AM -0600, rc wrote: Let us know if you get this working. I would love to run OpenBSD on my switches. PF running at wire speed would be beyond awesome. Oh please. A managed switch is not even closely able to run PF especially those cheapo Linksys thingis with a massivly under powered ARM CPU with probably a hopping 64M RAM. Switching chips are built for switching packets. They read the mac header and managed switches the vlan header. Expensive Layer 3 switches will read the dest IP header. These infos are used to do a lookup in a CAM table and based on that result forwarding is done. The CPU will only see packets that can not be handled in HW (e.g. because there is no CAM entry). Even the most expensive Cisco/Foundry/Extreme switches have not the CPU power to route or filter packets. Sure you could use a good L3 switch chip and combine it with a modern CPU (amd64 or core 2 duo) but that's an other story. -- :wq Claudio On 4/6/07, RedShift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Sam Fourman Jr. I have already done this. In essence a switch is nothing more but a big bridge. Ofcourse, with a regular computer you are limited on how many ports you can use, and since a switch is made for this goal... http://www.uclinux.org/ is a collection of patches to run linux without an MMU. It does have some restrictions though. I've tried to analyze the original linksys firmware images, but it's just a big heap of binary code. In both images (it has a boot and a software image) the letters RNTP occur, which could be led to runtop. Does anyone know about this runtop software? Thanks, Glenn
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 2007/04/06 00:27, darren kirby wrote: Oh no? Read the thread again: I think it would have been fairer if you included Marcus' response for the benefit of people who just read your selected quotes rather than the whole thread. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1573
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
On 4/6/07, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/5/07, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Siju George wrote: I wish somebody would design a simple hardware that has 24 or more NIC ports ( and of course WiFi ) and processor than can install OpenBSD. With PF then I could have a very inexpensive managed switch with ACLS for all hosts on the network:-) The problem isn't just getting lots of ports on a device (usb could probably do that), it's getting lots of ports on a device and getting them all to run at full bandwidth. I have been interested for quite some time in making a Switch with OpenBSD See this post http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-03/2353.html you may find this interesting Thankyou so much for the link sam :-) Kind Regards Siju
pfctl not loading rules - Must enable table loading for optimizations
Hello,
Trying to load any rules ( even /usr/share/pf/ examples ) I get the error
about enabling table loading for optimizations
and rules get ignored. anybody able to gently apply a cluestick as to what
table loading it is talking about?
# uname -a
OpenBSD gooner.mynet.net 4.1 GENERIC#10 i386
# pfctl -Rf /etc/pf.conf
pfctl: Must enable table loading for optimizations
# cat /etc/pf.conf
# macros
ext_if=re0
int_if=bge0
tcp_services={ 22, 113 }
icmp_types=echoreq
#comp3=192.168.0.3
# options
set block-policy drop
set loginterface $ext_if
set skip on lo
# scrub
scrub in
# nat/rdr
nat on $ext_if from !($ext_if) - ($ext_if:0)
nat-anchor ftp-proxy/*
rdr-anchor ftp-proxy/*
#rdr pass on $int_if proto tcp to port ftp - 127.0.0.1 port 8021
#rdr on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port 80 - $comp3
# filter rules
block in
pass out
anchor ftp-proxy/*
antispoof quick for { lo $int_if }
pass in on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to ($ext_if) port $tcp_services
pass in inet proto icmp all icmp-type $icmp_types
pass quick on $int_if no state
# pfctl -s nat
nat on re0 from ! (re0) to any - (re0:0)
rdr pass on re0 inet proto tcp from any to (re0:0) port = 64831 -
10.254.1.40 port 64831
rdr pass on re0 inet proto udp from any to (re0:0) port = 64831 -
10.254.1.40 port 64831
# pfctl -s rules
scrub in all fragment reassemble
#
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:56:11AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd saw that everyone had running openbsd on a hp procurve 5300xl switch on this modul here. http://www.hp.com/rnd/accessories/J8162A_/accessory.htm but i don't know some details. it would be very interesting. My company is running OpenBSD in a HP ProCurve 5300xl switch module (not the J8162A), it is one of our products: http://www.vantronix.com/products/vtfw/xl1/ More information to follow... reyk
Re: running OpenBSD on switch hardware
Claudio Jeker wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:54:03AM -0600, rc wrote: Let us know if you get this working. I would love to run OpenBSD on my switches. PF running at wire speed would be beyond awesome. Oh please. A managed switch is not even closely able to run PF especially those cheapo Linksys thingis with a massivly under powered ARM CPU with probably a hopping 64M RAM. Switching chips are built for switching packets. They read the mac header and managed switches the vlan header. Expensive Layer 3 switches will read the dest IP header. These infos are used to do a lookup in a CAM table and based on that result forwarding is done. The CPU will only see packets that can not be handled in HW (e.g. because there is no CAM entry). Even the most expensive Cisco/Foundry/Extreme switches have not the CPU power to route or filter packets. Sure you could use a good L3 switch chip and combine it with a modern CPU (amd64 or core 2 duo) but that's an other story. Very true, but the point here is the fun of being able to do it ;-) Since it's got no use to me because of the administrative problems it has, maybe I could find some other use with it and not have my money wasted ;-) Glenn
Re: bcw(4) is gone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6-apr-2007, at 10:32, chefren wrote: On 4/6/07 1:26 AM, Andris Delfino wrote: First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In the most publicly and shameful way. A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do with your code, the only reason why your name as an author is in the code is because without that anybody could claim that's my code pay me, your name is there just to prevent other people put claims on it, not for your honour. BSD is about maximum open-ness and making it impossible to violate copyright. B) If you don't have the decency to inquire before you do harm to people, even to a type like Saddam Houssein you are plain stupid asshole. The whole situation makes me think of the sneaky guy in this one: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/12523/f0abd313/index.html +++chefren Mistakes where made on both sides. This entire discussion is about how you handle problems and if you should remain friendly (or not) when such problems occur. Please keep the discussion friendly and on topic. Posting links to a movie of some guy making racist and other insulting comments while videotaping two people fighting DOES NOT HELP ANYONE. What are you trying to accomplish with this? Floor Terra iD8DBQFGFj+NUnW3VkBpTO4RAlK8AKCmZvX9CHj2BoVecskiQjgiD8Y8XgCg32Yw lhj1K0f6dV5+n10b6PYFV5Y= =vnTH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: pfctl not loading rules - Must enable table loading for optimizations
On 2007/04/06 12:04, mark reardon wrote: # pfctl -Rf /etc/pf.conf pfctl: Must enable table loading for optimizations the ruleset optimizer is now turned on by default; either don't use -R, or do use -onone
Re: bcw(4) is gone
Hi, Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users. Thank you, Linux BCW developers! actually, although the above is clearly meant in the sense if irony. I take it literally and agree with it. didn't cry a single tear about the adaptec shit either. my laptop has some silly 3com softmodem, which is not supported and I don't care that much. yes it would be more convenient to have it working but I still have enough serial (not even pcmcia) modems to carry around in case I need a modem which work better anyway. in the whole thread on gmane there is the sentence I am going to take my toys and go home is an immature, childish response to an adult problem. in this case I don't think so. why the fuck should I buy some trash from nvidia, adaptec, broadcom and spend have people spending lifeblood on doing the work of those when I can get stuff from amd,lsi,ralink ? public market is not a democratic republic. the only vote there is the vote of the feet. so people, don't buy and don't use trash dispose it properly and there will be less trash on the market. ( the sentece wasn't meant or used in this way in ther original thread, but the above is what came to my mind when I read it. in the original meaning it was referring to the deletion of the driver from the tree. I don't see this childish though. If we play we play for fun and not for profit. when the fun is gone there is no reason to keep playing unless one draws pleasure from the pain or fun is not the reason to play. ) apart from that Michael Buesch obviously doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong. like theo said, one pm would've been enough. I can understand that and why he didn't do that and sent out the mail to many, obviously he believed there was theft there and looking at the situation he had some reason to believe that. but at least later on he could've admitted that it was the wrong thing to do, that what he saw was not somebody intentionally stealing something from them but somebody putting things where they don't belong without realising and considering the consequeces of his actions. however, let it rest in peace, I hope we all learned something from it. CVS is _public_ for good and for bad, use with care the michaels are watching you. ;) -sm
Re: bcw(4) is gone
* Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-06 01:43]: Would it be wrong to develop software using existing GPL'ed code as a starting point. And bit by bit rewrite the code until you have rewritten all of it. Then releasing the final code under an BSD license? 100% legal -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Ralink pci on spark64?
Hi all, I have compiled a custom kernel based on GENERIC, enabled one line: ral* on pci?, and the card is recognized and seems to see other networks as well (ifconfig -M ral0). I'll start measuring transfer rates soon. As promised, I've managed to measure the transfer rates, using my Thinkpad's ath0 card (ibm a/b/g). Ral(4) on Ultra was configured for WEP, static IP address, on a not-too-busy channel (6). To measure the rates, I have simply scp-ed a large binary file from the laptop to the machine. System under test: Sun Ultra 10, 512 MB ram, 440 MHz ultra sparc II, ral0 at pci2 dev 2 function 0 Ralink RT2560 card, static ip, no pf, OpenBSD -current (rebuild from source a couple of days ago), custom kernel based on GENERIC with ral enabled, WEP with static keys. Laptop OS - Transfer rate OpenBSD 4.0650 KB/s Linux FC6.0 1 MB/s WindowsXP 1.4 MB/s (I've used cygwin ssh under Windows) Notes: I think almost everybody knows that OpenBSD ath doesn't work that well in 11g mode, hence the reduced (but stable) performance. Fedora Core 6.0 failed to correctly detect that it was actually connected. WindowsXP transfer rates looked solid. I've noticed high interrupt cpu usage (37%) on Sun Ultra when copying the files wirelessly from Linux/Windows. hme(4) NICs use about 10% of the cpu. I'm quite happy with the speed - more then enough to browse internet, and is anyway faster then my ADSL connection. And, proving the point, ral(4) does work beautifully on sparc64 architecture. Maxim
Re: Would it be wrong to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6-apr-2007, at 15:45, Darren Reed wrote: You write on misc@openbsd.org: Would it be wrong to develop software using existing GPL'ed code as a starting point. And bit by bit rewrite the code until you have rewritten all of it. Then releasing the final code under an BSD license? I still don't know exactly what happened, but I suspect the process went something like this. Only the code in the development phase was public too and this is what pissed of the developers of the GPL'ed version. Yes that would be very wrong. You start off with something that is a derivative work of the GPL'd code and continue creating a new derivative of it. That at the end of the process the code looks nothing like the original is not the point. It was created using the original as the basis of it, so therefore it is a derived work. To create something that isn't a derivative requires starting from scratch and not using other people's work. If that would be wrong, where do you draw the line? Do you consider it derivative work when you create a clone of an application? Or do you have to look at the original code first for it to be derivative work? Maybe you use the original code as documentation to look up some magic numbers? I would say you start with a derivative, but not release it yet. Then piece by piece replace the GPL'ed code with your own code. Now all code is your own creation. With the exception of maybe some magic numbers all code is different. The magic numbers can't be licensed and would be the same even if you didn't use the GPL'ed code as a reference. I do believe it would be polite to mention the GPL'ed code and the developer of it as a source of documentation. Floor Terra iD8DBQFGFlU5UnW3VkBpTO4RAoG8AKDevXvwdVld6uTVD9bYeyPGMsI9fQCgzJq/ rxMPUkvEgSvy4xzKmpxtfIw= =kNV/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Diana Eichert wrote: bcw(4) is gone Marcus Glocker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], knows a big deal about wireless LANs. He has been involved in many of our wirelesss driver, he has also written applications for wireless applications like rtunes. He wrote the nostromo webserver. He is certainly the person who knows how to write original code. When it comes to bcw, a piece of hardware for that no documentation exists, he decided to use the docs the linux folks have. He began a rewrite of a bcw driver, inspired by the work of the linux folks. His driver was not working yet, to give him a headstart, he used some code of the linux folks with the clear intent to replace it with his own. Just to make sure this shit works. When I read Michael Buesch's original e-mail, I figured this out. He was probably just using it for testing purposes. I do not call myself a programmer. I just know enough scripting to get my job done, but even I figured this out. It doesn't take a genius. To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs. A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository of code for anyone to use. So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius. The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus, claiming license violations. Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver from the OpenBSD cvs tree. Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users. Thank you, Linux BCW developers! AntiLinuxRant Forget it. I was annoyed by the GPL Nazis and was going to write a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who just don't get it. /AntiLinuxRant
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:53 -0400, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Where is the Open Community is going these days... They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make? Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well? They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?
Re: bcw(4) is gone
IMO this is a vindication of the principle that being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you wrong: Michael should have handled this differently (especially given the state of the driver at the time), but he does have a responsibility to protect his license. It seems to be a big concern to him that the hardware vendor not be able to use his software, so the GPL is the correct license for his work. I have trouble imagining a situation where I wouldn't want a hardware vendor to use my code if it worked better, but he's the author so it's his decision to make. This is the absolute lamest argument that I have ever heard. What makes you think that Michael Douche has written anything better than broadcom? Granted there are better vendors out there but I am willing to bet money that broadcom has better engineers working on their products than some random dude working on a driver without docs and available engineers to bounce questions of. I am sure his magical sequence is like super good. I for one am glad that Marcus deleted the code; I would have done it immediately after that email and responded with the cvs delete message to an even wider audience and no explanation of my rationale. What you people seem to miss in the whole discussion here is that Linux people contact vendors IN PRIVATE if they find GPL violations yet a valuable member of the open source community does not get the same courtesy. Only bad things happen when one looks at Linux code. This is yet another example of it. This also underscores once more that Linux as a community is dead.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you people seem to miss in the whole discussion here is that Linux people contact vendors IN PRIVATE if they find GPL violations yet a valuable member of the open source community does not get the same courtesy. Only bad things happen when one looks at Linux code. This is yet another example of it. This also underscores once more that Linux as a community is dead. Not sure if I agree with you on that. Michael seemed to indicate that he'll do the same to a vendor. You can't lump all linux folks as of one mind. Agree that not treating everyone the same sucks, but this isn't the whole community doing it.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make? Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well? What do you care if that's what they care about? Don't forget that the desire to keep proprietary vendors from forking and re-closing code was precisely and explicitly the reason the GPL was written; someone who values that is probably going to choose the GPL to release their work under. Complaining that Developer X chooses to use the GPL is as useless as complaining that Vendor Y chooses not to release source code at all. In both cases it's a license that is at odds with the purpose and principles of OpenBSD, and in both cases it's a violation of those authors' rights to copy their code in a manner they have not licensed you to. I'm not trying to come across as some sort of GPL cheerleader. I don't use it except when contracts stipulate it (and more do than you might think, given your they can't make money statement) and I think this situation is a good example of why the GPL bad for code trees with multiple authors (which is going to be any code tree of significant complexity that accepts patches). If one guy writes something and chooses to place it under the GPL, he can then relicense in a situation like this; if there end up being 40 authors of a module it's impractical to track every one of them down if they haven't handed their copyright over to a primary maintainer, especially if all you really know about somebody is their public key and email address 3 years ago when they committed last. But all those complaints don't mean anything at all: I wasn't an author for the Linux driver so I don't get a say in how the Linux driver is licensed. The people who did the work to write it get to decide under what terms it can be redistributed, and once they have decided that they have a responsibility to see it is enforced. They don't have to CC hundreds of people on their first mailing like this guy did, but then again they have a right to do so if they want to. Just like I have a right to think they're jerks for doing that. Weldon [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
configuring APM on Thinkpad T43?
Upon booting, I have always seen APM connect errors, but assumed that this was because I had never configured it. After looking at the manpages for APM(4) APM(8) on OpenBSD 4.0, it looked like all I needed to do is enable apmd through /etc/rc.conf. I wasn't seeing any entry in dmesg before editing /etc/rc.conf, I'm still not seeing entries for apm0 afterwards. According to the laptop page: http://openbsd.org/i386-laptop.html Thinkpad T43's support APM, however I'm seeing some hits on DaemonNews stating T43's have problems with APM on FreeBSD. I'm not seeing anything in the BIOS settings which toggle support, so I'm guessing whatever interface is present is enabled. Does anyone have any experience on what I can do to configure APM? dmesg on OpenBSD 4.0 follows: OpenBSD 4.0 (GENERIC) #1107: Sat Sep 16 19:15:58 MDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC cpu0: Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.86GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 799 MHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE, SSE2,SS,TM,SBF,EST,TM2 cpu0: unknown Enhanced SpeedStep CPU, msr 0x06120e2906000612 cpu0: using only highest and lowest power states cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 800 MHz (988 mV): speeds: 1867, 800 MHz real mem = 2137419776 (2087324K) avail mem = 1941614592 (1896108K) using 4256 buffers containing 106975232 bytes (104468K) of memory mainbus0 (root) bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+(b5) BIOS, date 11/30/06, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xfd740, SMBIOS rev. 2.33 @ 0xe0 010 (64 entries) bios0: IBM 18714BU pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.1 @ 0xfd6d0/0x930 pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing Table rev 1.0 @ 0xfdeb0/256 (14 entries) pcibios0: PCI Interrupt Router at 000:31:0 (Intel 82371FB ISA rev 0x00) pcibios0: PCI bus #5 is the last bus bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xf600! 0xcf800/0x1600 0xd1000/0x1000 0xdc000/0x4000! 0xe/0x1 cpu0 at mainbus0 pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel 82915GM/PM/GMS Host rev 0x03 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 82915GM/GMS Video rev 0x03: aperture at 0x9008, size 0x100 0 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation) Intel 82915GM/GMS Video rev 0x03 at pci0 dev 2 function 1 not configured ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 Intel 82801FB PCIE rev 0x03 pci1 at ppb0 bus 2 bge0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 Broadcom BCM5751M rev 0x11, BCM5750 B1 (0x4101): irq 11, address 00: 11:25:46:8d:40 brgphy0 at bge0 phy 1: BCM5750 10/100/1000baseT PHY, rev. 0 ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 2 Intel 82801FB PCIE rev 0x03 pci2 at ppb1 bus 3 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 82801FB USB rev 0x03: irq 11 usb0 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0 at usb0uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 82801FB USB rev 0x03: irq 11 usb1 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0 uhub1 at usb1 uhub1: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub1: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 82801FB USB rev 0x03: irq 11 usb2 at uhci2: USB revision 1.0 uhub2 at usb2 uhub2: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub2: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 Intel 82801FB USB rev 0x03: irq 11 usb3 at uhci3: USB revision 1.0 uhub3 at usb3 uhub3: Intel UHCI root hub, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub3: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 Intel 82801FB USB rev 0x03: irq 11 usb4 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub4 at usb4 uhub4: Intel EHCI root hub, rev 2.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub4: 8 ports with 8 removable, self powered ppb2 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 Intel 82801BAM Hub-to-PCI rev 0xd3 pci3 at ppb2 bus 4 cbb0 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 TI PCI1510 CardBus rev 0x00: irq 11 iwi0 at pci3 dev 2 function 0 Intel PRO/Wireless 2915ABG rev 0x05: irq 11, address 00:0e:35:e2:af: 6f cardslot0 at cbb0 slot 0 flags 0 cardbus0 at cardslot0: bus 5 device 0 cacheline 0x8, lattimer 0xb0 pcmcia0 at cardslot0 auich0 at pci0 dev 30 function 2 Intel 82801FB AC97 rev 0x03: irq 11, ICH6 AC97 ac97: codec id 0x41445374 (Analog Devices AD1981B) ac97: codec features headphone, 20 bit DAC, No 3D Stereo audio0 at auich0 Intel 82801FB Modem rev 0x03 at pci0 dev 30 function 3 not configured ichpcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 Intel 82801FBM LPC rev 0x03: PM disabled pciide0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 Intel 82801FBM SATA rev 0x03: DMA, channel 0 wired to compatibil ity, channel 1 wired to compatibility wd0 at pciide0 channel 0 drive 0: HTS541060G9AT00audio0 at auich0 Intel 82801FB Modem rev 0x03 at pci0 dev 30 function 3 not configured ichpcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 Intel 82801FBM LPC rev 0x03: PM disabled pciide0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 Intel 82801FBM SATA rev 0x03: DMA, channel 0 wired to compatibil ity, channel 1 wired to compatibility wd0 at pciide0 channel 0 drive 0: HTS541060G9AT00 wd0: 16-sector PIO, LBA, 57231MB, 117210240 sectors
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:15:33 -0400, Harry Menegay [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Diana Eichert wrote: To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs. A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository of code for anyone to use. So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius. Uploading it onto a publicly accessible CVS (even though the public might not have upload rights) certainly is publishing the code. He made an error by publishing it publicly instead of setting up a private CVS to share with others working on the driver, or emailing them updates until he could replace all the GPL'd code. Using someone else's code temporarily while working on the changes is quite understandable, but uploading it to a publicly viewable CVS where things are assumed to be under the BSD license unless specifically marked otherwise is not. He made a mistake in judgment. You may be right, but then I would have made the same error as he did if I were in the same situation. Even though it is publicly accessible does not mean to me that it was *published* and there was certainly no insertion of a BSD license into the code used. A CVS is a repository of code under development, not finished products. I still don't feel any license was violated. I would have understood a friendly heads up of, Hey, I see you are using some of my code. Do you want to discuss the licensing issue or are going to be removing all of it in the finished product? Instead of calling him a thief and then *denying* you called him a thief.
ftp clients thru bridged firewalled interfaces
Hello, I maybe barking up the wrong tree on this one. I am trying to push ftp clients thru a internal bridged interface with no dice. I can say that I have several firewalls w/ftp clients of all flavours working fine thru IPv4 connected interfaces. However is there a way to get it to work when their is no $int_if:network or for that matter any ip linked to the internal interface. This is on a routeable IPv4 addressing. Good Friday? You bet! TIA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bcw(4) is gone
I read the whole thread at gmane and I'm disgusted that a Linux developer would turn on a BSD developer like that, but I'm not surprised. Theo makes the point that Buesch and Co. are treating Marcus like a thief. They all deny it (claiming they want to help Marcus and the situation), but then they show their true colors when Buesch himself says- The way OpenBSD folks used our code was a complete lack of respect for us. Fullstop. That clearly exposes that Buesch thinks Marcus didn't make a 'mistake', but did something on purpose... like a --thief--. Buesch cc'd a large part of the community on his initial email, which itself was rude. Why? Because Buesch clearly thinks he and his driver are more important than treating Marcus like a human being, and the chance to look important via controversy just couldn't be resisted. This is Buesch's big moment! His 15 minutes of fame! And unfortunately, it worked. That, to me, means Buesch is an asshole. He made more of a name for himself in this bullshit fight then he would've for just being the author of the GPL driver. He did it at the expense of Marcus, he did it on purpose, and that is wrong. Plain and simple. 'Fullstop'. Anyone that tries to handle an issue like Buesch has handled this one is just trying to ham it up in the public spotlight. Theo rightly came to Marcus' defense because that's Theo's job. Theo gains nothing from this except the understanding amongst OBSD devs that anyone that develops for OBSD won't be left in the cold when this shit happens. Kudos to you, Theo. danno
Re: bcw(4) is gone
Writes darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... From: Joseph Jezak: As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method was maintained. To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers regarding clarification of the specification, but I would welcome any questions they might have. So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks? In order for the OpenBSD folks to have worked this out, they would have had to go through function by function and ask for approval to use that function. If refused, they would have had to devise a workaround that was sufficiently different as to qualify as new and original -- without documentation. The example function quoted sounded like it was actually a macro - probably a small enough chunk of code that there may not be any logical new and original alternative. So, even if we stop here, we have a cumbersome process that (a) wastes a lot of time, and (b) is not guaranteed to result in anything that works. But wait, there's worse! The FSF contract standard generally requires a release *in writing*. (See documents like Legal Issues about Contributing Code to GNU). Assuming the gnu bcw programmers are serious about protecting their interests (and they sure sound like they are), and assuming the openBSD folks are even willing to tolerate this level of nonsense, then to get the same level of protection each of these exceptions would then need a separate written release. So, what we're talking about here is a momumental amount of work that is easily an order of magnitude more complicated than the actual driver, with no appreciable benefit to anybody except perhaps the lawyers drafting up all those releases. No part of this process produces better code, and no part of this process produces a more secure operating system, so all this work we're talking about here is way out of scope for OpenBSD. There isn't really any alternative for Marcus Glocker here either. Now that he's clearly seen the GPL code, it would be very difficult for him to produce any code for this hardware a clever lawyer couldn't argue was derivative. He's on the dirty side of the Chinese Wall now. Unless he wants to spend 90% of his time working out function by function copyright releases, the only real alternative he has is to delete his code find something completely different of actual value to work on. I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows, for once for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing fees or restrictions.) It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. I can understand why though; DMCA would make that a much more risky affair today than when the Phoenix folks pioneered the Chinese Wall approach. -Marcus Watts
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?! Reading that gmane list, one of the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions about the specs.
Re: ftp clients thru bridged firewalled interfaces
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:31:43PM -0400, Bret Lambert wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 22:11 -0600, dreamwvr wrote: Hello, I maybe barking up the wrong tree on this one. I am trying to push ftp clients thru a internal bridged interface with no dice. I can say that I have several firewalls w/ftp clients of all flavours working fine thru IPv4 connected interfaces. However is there a way to get it to work when their is no $int_if:network or for that matter any ip linked to the internal interface. This is on a routeable IPv4 addressing. Good Friday? You bet! TIA [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've pushed ftp clients through a bridging firewall with ftpsesame cool! THX!
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:30:35PM -0400, bofh wrote: On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?! Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/ I've spent some time reading it today, for the occasion. It seems to be lacking some details, e.g. the section describing how to attach the backplane bridge of the chip [1] says to turn on the clock crystal and links to a section called Clock Control, but that section is completely empty... [1] http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/Backplane#head-e793f6c6fc341200320958a2a3ad032 0af0bdc97 Now, someone writing a driver for that crazy chip would really like to know how to turn on that bloody clock to get the chip up and running. Apparently it's supposed to be the very first thing the driver should do to init the chip btw. Weird that it does not seem to be documented in the spec already. I hope I've just missed it, maybe it's documented somewhere else and the link is just wrong? Reading that gmane list, one of the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions about the specs. I guess someone working only with that spec would end up asking them quite a few questions indeed. And as far as I can tell writing a driver for that chip is a big task, even if there were full docs. I can see why mglocker@ used their code to get going. If only he hadn't committed it, oh well, shit happens :-| -- stefan http://stsp.in-berlin.de PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote: It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. They did: http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net and http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?! Reading that gmane list, one of the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions about the specs. Cool! My mistake -- http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20061121194620 openbsd... points to http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/ http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ points to http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/ I have seen other pieces of GPL code where the writers had signed NDAs to get the necessary information. I always found that questionable. -Marcus Watts
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote: Writes darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... From: Joseph Jezak: As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method was maintained. To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers regarding clarification of the specification, but I would welcome any questions they might have. So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks? In order for the OpenBSD folks to have worked this out, they would have had to go through function by function and ask for approval to use that function. If refused, they would have had to devise a workaround that was sufficiently different as to qualify as new and original -- without documentation. The example function quoted sounded like it was actually a macro - probably a small enough chunk of code that there may not be any logical new and original alternative. So, even if we stop here, we have a cumbersome process that (a) wastes a lot of time, and (b) is not guaranteed to result in anything that works. But wait, there's worse! The FSF contract standard generally requires a release *in writing*. (See documents like Legal Issues about Contributing Code to GNU). Assuming the gnu bcw programmers are serious about protecting their interests (and they sure sound like they are), and assuming the openBSD folks are even willing to tolerate this level of nonsense, then to get the same level of protection each of these exceptions would then need a separate written release. So, what we're talking about here is a momumental amount of work that is easily an order of magnitude more complicated than the actual driver, with no appreciable benefit to anybody except perhaps the lawyers drafting up all those releases. No part of this process produces better code, and no part of this process produces a more secure operating system, so all this work we're talking about here is way out of scope for OpenBSD. There isn't really any alternative for Marcus Glocker here either. Now that he's clearly seen the GPL code, it would be very difficult for him to produce any code for this hardware a clever lawyer couldn't argue was derivative. He's on the dirty side of the Chinese Wall now. Unless he wants to spend 90% of his time working out function by function copyright releases, the only real alternative he has is to delete his code find something completely different of actual value to work on. I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows, for once for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing fees or restrictions.) It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered specifications separately. I can understand why though; DMCA would make that a much more risky affair today than when the Phoenix folks pioneered the Chinese Wall approach. -Marcus Watts Part of this is nonsense and I dont mean to pick on you in particular but I have seen it repeated a few times now and its getting annoying. If licenses were as viral as some of you people imagine that one cannot look at a source file copyrighted with a dumb license interpert what the code does and create your own version parts of the LINUX KERNEL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APSL and imagine the CDDL as well but I dont mess around with sun hardware... Seriously you can go look at some of their recent mac powerpc drivers and you can see plenty of references to where bits of information were taken from darwin, they have done nothing wrong.
Re: bcw(4) is gone
Gordon Willem Klok [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part of this is nonsense and I dont mean to pick on you in particular but I have seen it repeated a few times now and its getting annoying. If licenses were as viral as some of you people imagine that one cannot look at a source file copyrighted with a dumb license interpert what the code does and create your own version parts of the LINUX KERNEL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APSL and imagine the CDDL as well but I dont mess around with sun hardware... Seriously you can go look at some of their recent mac powerpc drivers and you can see plenty of references to where bits of information were taken from darwin, they have done nothing wrong. You got me. I'm not a lawyer. But before you assume you're in the free clear, you might want to look at these: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0101000-.html text of us statue defining derivative work. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html fair use - music sampling http://www.ivanhoffman.com/helpful.html pointers to more interesting copyright cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc. parody - fair use? 4 grounds: purpose, nature, substantiality, effect on market case by case - no general rule. http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/ derivative works. all or parts. 4 part rule again. http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi note last case - same expression. also note in many cases, words like probably not, that depends, etc. That means you're in a grey zone, which means you could be right, and you could still end up in court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leading_legal_cases_in_copyright_law lots and lots of case law. some of them are even relevant, some is not. http://www.low-life.fsnet.co.uk/copyright/ copyright and sampling. UK. http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq4.php lots of stuff. Note question 30: new recording based on parts of other songs usually not legal. may fall into the category of derivative work. This isn't a black white thing. There's a lot of grey here, with room for lots of expensive legal maneuvering, and you can definitely find case law on both sides of the coin. The biggest saving grace I can see here is since the GPL folks aren't in fact a for-profit concern, they can't really claim much in the way of monetary damages in their market. That *might* save you on ground #4. One of the things I learned in constructing the above list is a lot has happened with music sampling and copyright law in the past decade, and questions that were formerly in the grey area might not be anymore. All of this stuff is evolving rapidly. When I've talked to lawyers in the past, they've been very clear there's probably safe and nearly certainly safe - and there's a choice you make. They'll cheerfully tell you what's nearly certainly safe, and urge you to take that, and it will very likely seem quite unreasonable - especially after they say even that's not absolutely safe. Part of the judgement call you get to make very often is what will the other guy actually decide to do, and why. One of the many reasons I went into software development instead of lawyering is that computers are a lot more straight-forward. -Marcus Watts
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows, for once for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing fees or restrictions.) Finally, a really meaningful point. This whole affair has once again proved that the project's dedication to getting a hardware vendor to reduce completely open specifications and documentation, and not compromises around such, is truly the only safe way to go. Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison, both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset. DS
lastest snapshot + xenocara + thinkpad x60s + i810 problem
Hello, I've been using 4.1 with X11 without problems (using a simple custom xorg.conf with the i810 driver). I updated to current with the latest xenocara a few minutes ago but now, I'm not able to use the i810 driver, because I get the following error when starting X: (WW) I810: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0:2:1) found The following thread did not help: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070328153001pid=4 I would really appreciate some help! Kind regards Didier Here my dmesg + the Xorg.0.log OpenBSD 4.1-current (GENERIC.MP) #1259: Thu Apr 5 13:53:55 MDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP cpu0: Genuine Intel(R) CPU L2400 @ 1.66GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 1.67 GHz cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,VMX,EST,TM2,xTPR real mem = 2137419776 (2087324K) avail mem = 1943449600 (1897900K) using 4278 buffers containing 106995712 bytes (104488K) of memory User Kernel Config UKC enable acpi 389 acpi0 enabled UKC quit Continuing... mainbus0 (root) bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 03/14/07, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xfd690, SMBIOS rev. 2.4 @ 0xe0010 (67 entries) bios0: LENOVO 17025PG pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.1 @ 0xfd620/0x9e0 pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing Table rev 1.0 @ 0xfdea0/272 (15 entries) pcibios0: PCI Interrupt Router at 000:31:0 (Intel 82371FB ISA rev 0x00) pcibios0: PCI bus #22 is the last bus bios0: ROM list: 0xc/0xea00! 0xcf000/0x1000 0xd/0x1000 0xdc000/0x4000! 0xe/0x1! acpi0 at mainbus0: rev 2 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP SSDT ECDT TCPA APIC MCFG HPET BOOT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT acpitimer at acpi0 not configured acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: apic clock running at 166 MHz cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) cpu1: Genuine Intel(R) CPU L2400 @ 1.66GHz (GenuineIntel 686-class) 1.67 GHz cpu1: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,VMX,EST,TM2,xTPR ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 1 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins ioapic0: duplicate apic id, remapped to apid 2 acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 0 (AGP_) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 2 (EXP0) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 3 (EXP1) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 4 (EXP2) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus 12 (EXP3) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus 21 (PCI1) acpiec at acpi0 not configured acpibtn at acpi0 not configured acpibtn at acpi0 not configured acpibat at acpi0 not configured acpibat at acpi0 not configured acpibat at acpi0 not configured acpiac at acpi0 not configured acpitz at acpi0 not configured acpitz at acpi0 not configured pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios) pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 Intel 82945GM MCH rev 0x03 vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 Intel 82945GM Video rev 0x03: aperture at 0xee10, size 0x1000 wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation) wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation) Intel 82945GM Video rev 0x03 at pci0 dev 2 function 1 not configured azalia0 at pci0 dev 27 function 0 Intel 82801GB HD Audio rev 0x02: apic 2 int 17 (irq 11) azalia0: host: High Definition Audio rev. 1.0 azalia0: codec: Analog Devices AD1981HD (rev. 2.0), HDA version 1.0 azalia0: codec: 0x04x/0x14f1 (rev. 0.0), HDA version 0.9 azalia0: codec[1]: No support for modem function groups azalia0: codec[1]: No audio function groups audio0 at azalia0 ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x02 pci1 at ppb0 bus 2 em0 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 Intel PRO/1000MT (82573L) rev 0x00: apic 2 int 16 (irq 11), address 00:16:d3:21:4b:b6 ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 1 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x02 pci2 at ppb1 bus 3 wpi0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG rev 0x02: apic 2 int 17 (irq 11), address 00:13:02:16:27:0f ppb2 at pci0 dev 28 function 2 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x02 pci3 at ppb2 bus 4 ppb3 at pci0 dev 28 function 3 Intel 82801GB PCIE rev 0x02 pci4 at ppb3 bus 12 uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x02: apic 2 int 16 (irq 11) uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x02: apic 2 int 17 (irq 11) uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x02: apic 2 int 18 (irq 11) uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x02: apic 2 int 19 (irq 11) ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 Intel 82801GB USB rev 0x02: apic 2 int 19 (irq 11) usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 uhub0: Intel EHCI root hub, rev 2.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 8 ports with 8 removable, self powered ppb4 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 Intel 82801BAM Hub-to-PCI rev 0xe2 pci5 at ppb4 bus 21 cbb0 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 Ricoh 5C476 CardBus rev 0xb4: apic 2 int 16 (irq 11) Ricoh 5C552 Firewire rev 0x09 at pci5 dev 0 function 1 not configured sdhc0 at pci5 dev 0 function 2 Ricoh 5C822 SD/MMC rev 0x18: apic 2 int 18 (irq 11) sdmmc0 at sdhc0 cardslot0 at cbb0 slot 0 flags 0
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Darren Spruell wrote: This whole affair has once again proved that the project's dedication to getting a hardware vendor to reduce completely open specifications and documentation, and not compromises around such, is truly the only safe way to go. That appears to be a fair conclusion. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: lastest snapshot + xenocara + thinkpad x60s + i810 problem
On 4/6/07, Didier Wiroth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been using 4.1 with X11 without problems (using a simple custom xorg.conf with the i810 driver). I updated to current with the latest xenocara a few minutes ago but now, I'm not able to use the i810 driver, because I get the following error when starting X: (WW) I810: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0:2:1) found see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=117571787528353w=2 you probably need a newer snap.
Re: lastest snapshot + xenocara + thinkpad x60s + i810 problem
On 2007/04/06 22:44, Didier Wiroth wrote: I've been using 4.1 with X11 without problems (using a simple custom xorg.conf with the i810 driver). I think you got lucky and had a build from just after the old i810 driver was imported (4 April), there was a problem with the newer intel driver. (II) Primary Device is: PCI 00:02:0 (WW) I810: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0:2:1) found This is a reasonably major update to X, you might like to start with no xorg.conf or a fresh one (disable X, run Xorg -configure) and merge in whatever you need. In many circumstances (this field is usually optional in single-head configurations when using the primary graphics card), BusID lines can just be removed. Note that there is a newer X snapshot today.
Re: lastest snapshot + xenocara + thinkpad x60s + i810 problem
Hello, Thanks for helping! This is a reasonably major update to X, you might like to start with no xorg.conf or a fresh one (disable X, run Xorg -configure) and merge in whatever you need. I tried to use Xorg -configure but it doesn't find/use the i810 driver. It generates a xorg.conf.new file with the vesa driver! In many circumstances (this field is usually optional in single-head configurations when using the primary graphics card), BusID lines can just be removed. Note that there is a newer X snapshot today. I downloaded the x*.tgz files (build the 6 of April) from ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386 a few minutes ago, but these didn't work for me either. Here is the xorg log file while using Xorg -configure. (--) checkDevMem: using aperture driver /dev/xf86 (--) Using wscons driver on /dev/ttyC4 in pcvt compatibility mode (version 3.32) X Window System Version 7.2.0 Release Date: 22 January 2007 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 7.2 Build Operating System: OpenBSD 4.1 i386 Current Operating System: OpenBSD internal.local 4.1 GENERIC.MP#1259 i386 Build Date: 04 April 2007 Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org to make sure that you have the latest version. Module Loader present Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: /var/log/Xorg.0.log, Time: Fri Apr 6 23:30:01 2007 (==) Using config file: /etc/X11/xorg.conf (==) ServerLayout X.org Configured (**) |--Screen Screen0 (0) (**) | |--Monitor Monitor0 (**) | |--Device Card0 (**) |--Input Device Mouse0 (**) |--Input Device Keyboard0 (**) FontPath set to: /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc/, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/CID/, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/, /usr/local/share/fonts/override, /usr/local/share/fonts, /usr/local/lib/X11/fonts/ghostscript/ (**) RgbPath set to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb (**) ModulePath set to /usr/X11R6/lib/modules (II) Loader magic: 0x3c01bca0 (II) Module ABI versions: X.Org ANSI C Emulation: 0.3 X.Org Video Driver: 1.1 X.Org XInput driver : 0.7 X.Org Server Extension : 0.3 X.Org Font Renderer : 0.5 (II) Loader running on openbsd (II) LoadModule: pcidata (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules//libpcidata.so (II) Module pcidata: vendor=X.Org Foundation compiled for 7.2.0, module version = 1.0.0 ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 1.1 (II) PCI: PCI scan (all values are in hex) (II) PCI: 00:00:0: chip 8086,27a0 card 17aa,2017 rev 03 class 06,00,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:02:0: chip 8086,27a2 card 17aa,201a rev 03 class 03,00,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:02:1: chip 8086,27a6 card 17aa,201a rev 03 class 03,80,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:1b:0: chip 8086,27d8 card 17aa,2010 rev 02 class 04,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1c:0: chip 8086,27d0 card , rev 02 class 06,04,00 hdr 81 (II) PCI: 00:1c:1: chip 8086,27d2 card , rev 02 class 06,04,00 hdr 81 (II) PCI: 00:1c:2: chip 8086,27d4 card , rev 02 class 06,04,00 hdr 81 (II) PCI: 00:1c:3: chip 8086,27d6 card , rev 02 class 06,04,00 hdr 81 (II) PCI: 00:1d:0: chip 8086,27c8 card 17aa,200a rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:1d:1: chip 8086,27c9 card 17aa,200a rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1d:2: chip 8086,27ca card 17aa,200a rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1d:3: chip 8086,27cb card 17aa,200a rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1d:7: chip 8086,27cc card 17aa,200b rev 02 class 0c,03,20 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1e:0: chip 8086,2448 card , rev e2 class 06,04,01 hdr 01 (II) PCI: 00:1f:0: chip 8086,27b9 card 17aa,2009 rev 02 class 06,01,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:1f:1: chip 8086,27df card 17aa,200c rev 02 class 01,01,8a hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1f:2: chip 8086,27c5 card 17aa,200d rev 02 class 01,06,01 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1f:3: chip 8086,27da card 17aa,200f rev 02 class 0c,05,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 02:00:0: chip 8086,109a card 17aa,207e rev 00 class 02,00,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 03:00:0: chip 8086,4227 card 8086,1011 rev 02 class 02,80,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 15:00:0: chip 1180,0476 card fffc, rev b4 class 06,07,00 hdr 82 (II) PCI: 15:00:1: chip 1180,0552 card 17aa,201e rev 09 class 0c,00,10 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 15:00:2: chip 1180,0822 card 17aa,201d rev 18 class 08,05,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: End of PCI scan (II) Intel Bridge workaround enabled (II) Host-to-PCI bridge: (II) Bus 0: bridge is at (0:0:0), (0,0,22), BCTRL: 0x0008 (VGA_EN is set) (II) Bus 0 I/O range: [0] -1 0 0x - 0x (0x1) IX[B] (II) Bus 0 non-prefetchable memory range: [0] -1 0 0x - 0x (0x0) MX[B] (II) Bus 0 prefetchable memory range: [0] -1 0 0x - 0x (0x0)
Re: Issue with rThreads and Shared Libraries
Jon Steel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ive found a way to freeze a program when using rThreads and using a You are using unsupported kernel options. You are on your own, unless you talk directly to someone working on the code and work with them. rthreads are in no way usable yet. You can run experiments with them and they work as a very good proof of concept, but that's it. The issue you described is mostly likely fixed by a diff that's in the testing pipeline right now, many other issues are being worked on. Please notice that this doesn't mean that rthreads will be ready soon or for the next release or even the release after. We aim to finish as soon as possible, but some things take time and some (especially one I'm working on) are proving to be much harder to do right than expected. It could take a month, it could take 10 years. //art
carp, ospf can't see carp state
Hi,
I'm configuring 2 server to use as a gateway for multihoming.
I use:
OpenBSD 4.0 stable and OpenBSD 4.0 release
OpenBGPD
OpenOSPFD
CARP for failover
I have 2 router with 3 interfaces and 5 carp interfaces by router.
interface1 = eBGP with 2 upstream provider
interface2 = Link between the 2 routers, OSPF, iBGP (10.10.10.0/30)
(em0 and bge0)
interface3 = 5 * carp -- use as gateway for my servers (bge2)
Right now the BGP, and the CARP work correctly.
My problem is with the OSPF part. OSPF by itself work correctly but
it didn't announce any route concerning the carp interface.
If I start ospfd with ospfd -dv I see many:
if_fsm: event UP resulted in action START and changing state for
interface carpX from DOWN to DOWN
---
Router1:
ospfd.conf
router-id 0.0.0.1
redistribute 44.25.32.41/30
area 0.0.0.0 {
auth-type crypt
auth-md 1 iii
auth-md 2 jjj
auth-md-keyid 1
interface em0 {
metric 10
}
interface carp0 {
passive
}
interface carp1
interface carp2
interface carp3
interface carp4
}
hostname.bge2:
inet 83.201.76.2 255.255.255.0 NONE description My network
-
Router2:
ospfd.conf
router-id 0.0.0.2
redistribute 211.6.17.17/30
area 0.0.0.0 {
auth-type crypt
auth-md 1 iii
auth-md 2 jjj
auth-md-keyid 1
interface bge0
interface carp0 {
passive
}
interface carp1
interface carp2
interface carp3
interface carp4
}
hostname.bge2:
inet 23.182.158.2 255.255.255.0 NONE description My network
---
Both router:
CARP:
hostname.carp0:
inet 23.182.158.1 255.255.255.0 23.182.158.255 vhid 1 pass
temppass2 carpdev bge2
hostname.carp1:
inet 83.201.77.1 255.255.255.0 83.201.77.255 vhid2 pass temppass2
carpdev bge2
hostname.carp2:
inet 83.201.78.1 255.255.255.0 83.201.78.255 vhid3 pass temppass2
carpdev bge2
hostname.carp3:
inet 83.201.79.1 255.255.255.0 83.201.79.255 vhid4 pass temppass2
carpdev bge2
hostname.carp4:
inet 83.201.76.1 255.255.255.0 83.201.76.255 vhid5 pass temppass2 carpdev bge2
Thanks,
FranC'ois
Re: bcw(4) is gone
On 4/6/07, Stefan Sperling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/ I've spent some time reading it today, for the occasion. It seems to be lacking some details, e.g. the section describing how to attach the backplane bridge of the chip [1] says to turn on the clock crystal and links to a section called Clock Control, but that section is completely empty... It's a pain, I was constantly comparing the v4 specs at the URL you mentioned above and the older v3 specs at http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ to try and figure out how to get anything done. I am impressed beyond belief that the bcm43xx crew managed to build a driver and/or reverse engineer that hardware. -- Jon
