Kevin's analysis is spot-on, as is his patch, which I've just applied.
Cheers,
Simon.
On 26/10/2018 00:24, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>
>
>> On 25 Oct 2018, at 21:38, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think Openwrt is safe. There will be a loud scream from me if it isn’t
>>
On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:24 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 25 Oct 2018, at 21:38, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think Openwrt is safe. There will be a loud scream from me if it isn’t
>> :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Kevin D-B
>>
>
> In fact to prove it to myself I
> On 25 Oct 2018, at 21:38, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> I think Openwrt is safe. There will be a loud scream from me if it isn’t :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kevin D-B
>
In fact to prove it to myself I had a go at removing the NO_FORK compile time
option (patch attached) and had no
> On 25 Oct 2018, at 20:33, Shankar Unni wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
>> […]
>> The next option in my sights is NO_FORK. This produces a
>> mostly-functional binary that never forks any new processes. It was
>> added long ago to support uclinux, the MMU-less
On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> […]
> The next option in my sights is NO_FORK. This produces a
> mostly-functional binary that never forks any new processes. It was
> added long ago to support uclinux, the MMU-less version of Linux. As far
> as I can tell, MMU-less linux is a
The dnsmasq code has a range of binary compile-time options, implemented
conventionally using the C pre-processor. These options are mutually
independent, so the numnber of different versions scales as 2^n. To keep
this managable, I'm trying to limit the number of options.
I've already removed
