Dear,
Thank you for your feed-back.
I'll look for this issu, and i hope deliver a better patch quickly.
Regards,
--
Alexandre Martins
Research engineer
NETASQ
On Monday 14 February 2011 16:50:26 Anonymous wrote:
> Alexandre Martins writes:
> > For those interested in testing,
Dears,
After several research, i have removed the problematic part.
You can find the new version here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~fabient/patch-head20110222-openssl1.0.0d
Regards,
--
Alexandre Martins
Research engineer
NETASQ
On Monday 14 February 2011 17:18:24 Alexandre Martins wrote
nf-sparc64.h
> opensslconf.h ( echo "#ifndef MK1MF_BUILD"; echo " /* auto-generated
> by crypto/Makefile.ssl for crypto/cversion.c */"; echo " #define
> CFLAGS \"cc\""; echo " #define PLATFORM \"FreeBSD-sparc64\""; echo "
>
world
7) and install it
make installworld
8) welcome to openssl 1.0.0d
openssl version
I have build successfully FreeBSD for all platfom (make universe)
I also checked it on i386 and amd64 platform and no problems was found.
Regards,
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 10:31:16 Alexandre Martins
be better to release the reference after the call.
What about you?
Regards
--
Alexandre Martins
STORMSHIELD
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
ULL without m_freem it.
Can you look at this ?
Regards
--
Alexandre Martins
STORMSHIELD
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
; > Hi,
> >
> > what you thing about this patch?
> > lp_detaching can be non zero in case of parent interface departure.
> > So I don't see the reason to call ETHER_BPF_MTAP() in this case.
>
> Now I see the reason - to capture all received packets before interface
&
ot; ?
Best regards
--
Alexandre Martins
STORMSHIELD
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
I have the save question for the cpu_ipi_pending here:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c?view=annotate#l1080
Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 10:43:14 Alexandre Martins a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm curently reading the code of the function smp_rendezvous_action, in
>
Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 15:07:54 Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:59:27AM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > I have the save question for the cpu_ipi_pending here:
> >
> > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c?view=annotate#l1
>
Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 16:25:17 Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:52:09PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 15:07:54 Konstantin Belousov a ?crit :
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:59:27AM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
>
Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 16:25:17 Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:52:09PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 15:07:54 Konstantin Belousov a ?crit :
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:59:27AM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
>
Le vendredi 10 mars 2017, 15:57:16 Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:24:52PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Le jeudi 9 mars 2017, 16:25:17 Konstantin Belousov a ?crit :
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:52:09PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
>
Le vendredi 10 mars 2017, 16:46:26 Konstantin Belousov a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 03:30:21PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Le vendredi 10 mars 2017, 15:57:16 Konstantin Belousov a ?crit :
> > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:24:52PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWb 11 em0 =>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
But not in FreeBSD >= 8
So, why is the broadcast route not created in FreeBSD >= 8 ?
And why is the command 'route get 192.168.0.0' fail in FreeBSD >= 8 ?
Regards
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
amp; (1U << bit)) == 0), function
arena_run_reg_dalloc, file /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c, line 2543.
But when i run the same binary without GDB, no assert.
I'm very confused. Can you help me to debug that ?
Best regards
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
On Monday 12 March 2012 18:55:55 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:50:33PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm currently having some trouble with the dynamic loader.
> >
> > I have the libc compilled with &qu
On Tuesday 13 March 2012 13:17:52 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:08:40AM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2012 18:55:55 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:50:33PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote
Dear,
On Tuesday 13 March 2012 15:18:31 jb wrote:
> Alexandre Martins netasq.com> writes:
> > ...
> > first.c:
> > ...
> > second.c
> > ...
> > main.c
> > ...
> >
> > while(42)
>
> How do you exit that loop ?
It&#x
On Tuesday 13 March 2012 20:44:43 you wrote:
> On 2012-03-13 11:08, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2012 18:55:55 Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:50:33PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> ...
>
> >>> I have the libc c
lled with a blocking parameter
(M_WAITOK) even if is for a non-blocking socket ?
Then, if M_NOWAIT is used, maybe it will be usefull to have an 'ENOMEM' error.
Regards
--
Alexandre Martins
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> On 02.04.2012 18:21, Alexandre Martins wrote:
>>> Dear,
>>>
>>> I have currently having troubles with a basic socket stress.
>>>
>>> The socket are setup to use non-blocking I/O.
>>&
and the call of "ata_generic_reset" and the problem
disapear.
I also made a more complex fix which check the "BUSY" flag.
Which fix of delai checking is the better one ?
Best Regards
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
I forget to attach patches
Le jeudi 24 octobre 2013 15:56:15 Alexandre Martins a écrit :
> Dear,
>
> We have seen some issues with the VIA VX900 chipset. The main trouble is
> that some SATA hard drive are not seen by the kernel (BIOS and boot-loader
> are OK).
>
> Aft
256200, i see that pullups has been removed. May it be related ?
Can you confirm the problem ?
Best regards
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
--- sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.c.orig 2014-01-09 16:33:39.0 +0100
+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_igb.c 2014-01-09 16:36:31.0 +0100
@@ -38
IP/TCP/UDP headers in the first mbuf
> > Y> of the chain.
> > Y> This looks wrong to me.
> >
> > Can you please restore the important code in head ASAP? Although crashes
>
> happen
>
> > only when the mbuf is last in a page and page isn't mapped, we read
>
> thrash from
>
> > next allocation on almost every packet.
>
> It seems other Intel ethernet drivers except em(4) have similar
> issues. I didn't check recent Intel controllers/drivers for long
> time so I don't know details on hardware requirements of
> offloading.
> Since Jack is very responsive and has hardwares to verify, he would
> be more appropriate person to handle these issues.
> ___
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Hi Eric,
In January, I have report a bug into igb driver :
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2014-January/047827.html
You send me a patch, but nothing was done into kernel sources.
Will it be planed to put a fix into the repository ?
Kind regards
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ
Hi Eric,
Thank you for the reply.
Regards,
--
Alexandre Martins
NETASQ -- We secure IT
Le mercredi 26 février 2014 10:50:48 Eric Joyner a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> We didn't put the fix into the repository because we think it would have
> had a significant impact on throu
100, Alexandre Martins wrote:
> > Dear,
> >
> > Have you extracted the tarball fo openssl source (1.0.0d) in
> > crypto/openssl ?
>
> Ah, I missed that, the last couple of mails in this thread were only
> talking about the patch :)
> With the tarball untared it actually
29 matches
Mail list logo
