> I'm curious -- what kinds of cards are supported by this routine?
> Does this include the DPT SmartRAID V, as well as the older SmartRAID
> IV? I've got an anonymous ftp server I need to rebuild -- it had
> previously been running Slackware Linux, but as the kernel got
> updated, the
< said:
> You probably don't want to chose RC6 or MARS because their authors
> will probably patent them if they lose, and then you'll have to back
> off using them fast.
If they were going to be patented, the application has already been
filed, so you might as well assume that they are patented
Jeroen writes:
> > > Twofish in abrest Davies-Meyer mode is going to blow away BF-CBC-256
> > > pseudo 256 bit block cipher Davies-Meyer performance wise, because of
> > > the key agility.
>
> But Twofish is not neccessarily the best choice. Yes, it's being
> pushed by Bruce Schneier but that's
Mark Murray wrote:
[...]
> > Crypto construct-wise I don't think you can treat BF-CBC of a 256 bit
> > plaintext with a 256 bit key as a virtual 256 bit block cipher
> > operation. I suspect the result will be weaker than 256 bits because
> > of the internal structure of BF-CBC.
>
> I'm not sure
On Sunday, August 27, 2000, Boris Popov wrote:
> No, not all bits are incorporated. At least you've missed two
> important things. First:
>
> # cd /dev/fd
> # ls
> 0 1 2
> # cd ..
> # ls
> 0 1 2
>
> And second - directory na
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> This incorporates the functional bits from the patch Boris posted
> here earlier as I've been able to extract them from his patch.
No, not all bits are incorporated. At least you've missed two
important things. First:
# cd /dev/fd
At 10:18 PM -0400 2000/8/23, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> I don't remember seeing a verbose boot log posted so I can't really say
> whats wrong. There is no difference b/t the -CURRENT and 4-STABLE
> versions of dpt_pci.c so I'm not sure what could be causing the
> problem. Of course it may be
If this is a problem with sbsize, this should take care of any possibility
ever of there being a problem...
Index: kern/kern_proc.c
===
RCS file: /usr2/ncvs/src/sys/kern/kern_proc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.69
diff -u -r1.69 kern_proc
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Missing:
> Rename
> Subdirs.
> Close some race conditions using guaranteed atomic operations.
> Mountoption (ro ?) to prevent new devices from appearing in an instance.
> All uses of cdevsw_add() needs to be u
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Nickolay Dudorov wrote:
> I usually run 'make -j32 buildworld' on my current
> system. After this commit I can not do this. The next patch
> permits to use '-j32' again.
Since it can't really break things to do so, I added it :) Thanks.
> N.Dudorov
--
Brian F
Mark writes:
> [...]
> FreeBSD is using an earlier version of T'so's code; I beiieve he
> improved it later, but it has no (or little) backtracking protection,
> and can be too easily attacked "from both sides".
OK, I agree that that's an area where yarrow offers better protection.
But it's not
Jonathan Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:51:16PM -0500, Visigoth wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the cross post but
> >
> > Would it be possible to revert the DPT commits made by peter on
> > Mon Aug 7 18:48:14 2000 in the RELENG_4 branch? It seems that the
> > dpt_attatch is failin
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:51:16PM -0500, Visigoth wrote:
> Sorry for the cross post but
>
> Would it be possible to revert the DPT commits made by peter on
> Mon Aug 7 18:48:14 2000 in the RELENG_4 branch? It seems that the
> dpt_attatch is failing in bus_alloc_resource(9) for
> > OK; what then? The existing MD5 based system is very attackable, and
> > protects itself very poorly.
>
> My argument for linux is leave it as it is, and see if we can persuade
> the yarrow authors to change yarrow so it does export a /dev/random
> compatible API.
If that happened, I'd fol
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Alexey Zelkin wrote:
> hi,
>
> Just experienced on 4.0-RELEASE and 4.1-STABLE (two days ago) following
> error when tried to build current world.
This was already fixed a few days ago.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles
Mark writes:
> > You really can't use yarrow to implement /dev/random as it is.
> > [...]
>
> OK; what then? The existing MD5 based system is very attackable, and
> protects itself very poorly.
My argument for linux is leave it as it is, and see if we can persuade
the yarrow authors to change
There is an official DEVFS patch at
http://phk.freebsd.dk/patch/devfs.patch
This incorporates the functional bits from the patch Boris posted
here earlier as I've been able to extract them from his patch.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I've been tracking -CURRENT for a while.. Whenever I attempt to build the
world I get the following break:
# make buildworld
===> usr.bin/kdump
cc -O -pipe -I/usr/src/usr.bin/kdump/../ktrace -I/usr/src/usr.bin/kdump/../.
. -I/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/
It seems Thomas Stromberg wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > This is not an "IDE RAID" controller. It's an IDE controller with some
> > lame "RAID" software in the BIOS. We don't support this.
>
> Hopefully this thread will save the next poor soul who tries this.
>
> Just
> You really can't use yarrow to implement /dev/random as it is. Even
> waiting for reseeds doesn't cut it. The issue is that everything goes
> through the yarrow output function, which restricts yarrow to offering
> computational security with at worst 2^n work factor to break because
> it offe
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Thomas Stromberg wrote:
>Hopefully this thread will save the next poor soul who tries this.
Indeed.
>Now the question is, what ATA-100 RAID solutions are there that are fully
>supported? I'd guess the Promise board, but the last time I guessed
>(err.. last week), I got a su
Mark writes:
> > I'm hoping to persuade the yarrow designers of the importance of
> > supporting /dev/random semantics for the unix community acceptance.
> > John Kelsey and I had some discussions along the lines of feeding
> > /dev/random output into yarrow, which I notice someone on here
> > co
Hello,
I've made some fixes in the fs layer of new devfs. First version
of this patch was passed via Poul and new version includes parts of his
suggestions.
Here is a brief decription of the patch:
Rename de_dir to de_parent with appropritate code changes.
Implement prop
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> This is not an "IDE RAID" controller. It's an IDE controller with some
> lame "RAID" software in the BIOS. We don't support this.
Hopefully this thread will save the next poor soul who tries this.
Just to put the final nail in the coffin.. I went ahea
hi,
Just experienced on 4.0-RELEASE and 4.1-STABLE (two days ago) following
error when tried to build current world.
===> secure/usr.bin/scp
cc -O -pipe -DNO_IDEA -I/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/include -c
/usr/src/secure/usr.bin/scp/../../../crypto/openssh/scp.c
cc -O -pipe -DNO_IDEA -I/usr/o
> > If i do a perlcc test.pl i get the folllowing , in CURRENT ?
> > Must i define something beforehand, or is it broken ?
>
> I'll take a look...
Looks like perl brokenness. The missing boot_DynaLoader is in DynaLoader.a,
but there is no way of linking it in.
M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPA
"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
> Not having a test system with PCI DPT boards somewhat limits my ability to
> wring these things out. I won't refuse a rackmounted compaq with PCI and
> EISA slots and a brace of DPT and Smart2 RAID cards if someone sends me
> one. Who knows? I might even be able to b
This is not an "IDE RAID" controller. It's an IDE controller with some
lame "RAID" software in the BIOS. We don't support this.
> (excuse complete ignorance as far as IDE RAID below)
>
> For the buildbox here, I decided to go ahead with Soren's ATA-100 RAID
> suggestion, and bought an Abit K
28 matches
Mail list logo
