On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT),
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com said:
Umm... how are you getting the reserved numbers?
pstat -s on SunOS4, and swap -s on SunOS5. From Solaris man page:
:-s Print summary information about total swap
:
:pstat -s on SunOS4, and swap -s on SunOS5. From Solaris man page:
:
::-s Print summary information about total swap
:: space usage and availability:
::
:: allocated The total amount of swap space
:: (in
If you only want to timestamp events and not generate the event, you
can use microtime() or nanotime(). On a 400MHz PII non-SMP you should
get 2.5 ns resolution with nanotime(). On a normal kernel with
kern.timecounter.method at the default of 0, the get... versions
give you time at the last tick
::-s Print summary information about total swap
:: space usage and availability:
::
:: allocated The total amount of swap space
:: (in 1024-byte blocks)
::
Are there any design limits to mfs? I want to use cdrecord to write to a
dozen or so CD's at once, and fear making lots of coasters if I run them
all off a single on-disk file. However, a CD only holds 650 MB, so it
seems like I could have the image on mfs and sleep well sans coasters.
Would
:
:Are there any design limits to mfs? I want to use cdrecord to write to a
:dozen or so CD's at once, and fear making lots of coasters if I run them
:all off a single on-disk file. However, a CD only holds 650 MB, so it
:seems like I could have the image on mfs and sleep well sans coasters.
:
Mike Smith wrote:
Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is
proprietary?
You make no sense.
If gdb should suffice for my debugging needs, how can a breakpoint be set
at a particular interrupt, or even at any interrupt? The break command
only seems
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 10:44:57AM +0100, Alex Knowles wrote:
I hope this is the right place to post, sorry if it's not.
I'm really sorry to post what is probably a repeat question, but I've just
upgraded to freebsd 3.2-release and I'm having real problems getting the
kernel to see my printer
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, John Nemeth wrote:
On Jul 15, 2:40am, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
} Garance A Drosihn wrote:
} At 12:20 AM +0900 7/15/99, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
} In which case the program that consumed all memory will be killed.
} The program killed is +NOT+ the one demanding
I don't care one way or the other. I could leave out the wrapped
poll() very easily and avoid the issue all together. This would
provide -stable with everything -current has, except of course
poll(). I'd prefer to add poll, though...
I'm OK with adding poll(), it just seemed odd that the
Can someone outline the initialization process of PCI devices in
FreeBSD? I know many of the basic stuff of PCI introduced in the book
PCI System Architecture. I just want to know how each driver is
registered into some linker set and its probe routine gets called. In
other words, I want to
[Hijacked from freebsd-security]
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:33:29 -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
What I wanted to do was have estr routines, where the destination
is specified as the starting point and the ending point of the area
available for the string (as two parameters). The routines
According to Gregory A. Carter:
I'm assuming that might have something to do with it. The file scrt0.c
This is the old a.out crt code. The one in 3.0+ is crt1.c, look into
/usr/src/lib/csu/i386-elf/.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
FreeBSD
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:15:31AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
As I understand it, the goal here is to return to the caller the number
of bytes copied (however you represent it), so that the caller can
easily determine whether or not dst is safe for operations demanding a
null-terminated
:Before program start:
:total: 2k bytes allocated + 4792k reserved = 24792k used, 191048k available
:
:After malloc, before touch:
:total: 18756k bytes allocated + 37500k reserved = 56256k used, 159580k
available
:
:After malloc + touch:
:total: 52804k bytes allocated + 4852k reserved =
In article
local.mail.freebsd-hackers/199907151825.laa11...@apollo.backplane.com you
write:
::-s Print summary information about total swap
:: space usage and availability:
::
:: allocated The total amount of swap space
::
If this is correct, then solaris is using a VMSPACE = SWAPSPACE
model. FreeBSD uses a VMSPACE = SWAPSPACE + REALMEM model.
AFAIK it has been stated quite explicitly by the Solaris folks that
Solaris 2.x uses VMSPACE = SWAPSPACE + REALMEM. This is *different*
from SunOS 4.1.x.
Steinar
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:15:31AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
As I understand it, the goal here is to return to the caller the number
of bytes copied (however you represent it), so that the caller can
easily determine whether or not dst is safe for operations demanding a
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:34:42 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
if (fooncat(string, append, sizeof(string)) != strlen(append))
...
which is rather evil, given that the second strlen(append) would be
completely gratuitous if it weren't for the interface you're
suggesting.
Tim, you're doing
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
What's really stupid is that most of the time you're trying to use
these functions to fix code that looks like:
strcpy(buf, str1);
strcat(buf, str2);
strcat(buf, str3);
without overflowing buf. This is dumb! Use asprintf
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
There was a talk on these (strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3)) at USENIX.
The logic as to their design was presented and I agree totally with
the way that the logic was played out into the functions.
They are described in the FreeNIX proceedings on page
Here is what I get from one of BEST's mail www proxy machines.
~dillon/br adds the object size's together. 'swap' and 'default'
objects refers to unbacked VM objects - and none of the processes running
fork shared unbacked objects so we don't have to worry about that. The
What's really stupid is that most of the time you're trying to use
these functions to fix code that looks like:
strcpy(buf, str1);
strcat(buf, str2);
strcat(buf, str3);
without overflowing buf. This is dumb! Use asprintf instead:
There was a talk on these
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
There was a talk on these (strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3)) at USENIX.
The logic as to their design was presented and I agree totally with
the way that the logic was played out into the functions.
They are described in the FreeNIX proceedings on
Ugh. Take the first example in the paper; it rewrites as
len = asprintf(path, %s/.foorc);
^ , homedir
Whoops.
--
\\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith
\\ of the man. \\ msm...@freebsd.org
\\-- Joseph Merrick
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Ugh. Take the first example in the paper; it rewrites as
len = asprintf(path, %s/.foorc);
as opposed to
strlcat(path, homedir, sizeof(path));
strlcat(path, /, sizeof(path));
strlcat(path, .foord, sizeof(path));
len
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:53:13AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
If all you're saying is that you want an API that doesn't require a test
against the known length of src (append in your example), then you won't
like strl*. :-)
Well, if I read your message correctly, the difference between
At 12:15 AM +0200 7/16/99, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
[Hijacked from freebsd-security]
For those who missed the original article, here's the initial
topic (from Paul Hart, but truncated a bit):
I was just reviewing the proceedings from the USENIX 1999
Annual Technical Conference where Todd
In that scenario, the 512MB of swap I assigned to this machine would be
dangerously low.
With 13GB disks available for a couple of hundred bucks, my machines aren't
going to run out of swap space any time soon, even if I commit to disk.
All I want for Christmas is a knob to disable
Ollivier Robert [Re: make fails in 3.2-RELEASE for netboot] 7.16.1999
..
. According to Gregory A. Carter:
. I'm assuming that might have something to do with it. The file scrt0.c
.
. This is the old a.out crt code. The
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:53:52 CST, lyn...@orthanc.ab.ca wrote:
All I want for Christmas is a knob to disable overcommit.
And what I'm pretty sure the majority of the readers on this list want
is for those of you who really think it's necessary to do it yourselves.
What? Nobody who wants to
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Ugh. Take the first example in the paper; it rewrites as
len = asprintf(path, %s/.foorc);
as opposed to
strlcat(path, homedir, sizeof(path));
strlcat(path, /, sizeof(path));
strlcat(path, .foord, sizeof(path));
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:48:41PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Actually, applications are written assuming that malloc() will not
fail, generally speaking.
Is this really the case? I'm pretty sure I've _never_ ignored the
possibility of a NULL return from malloc, and I've been using it
for
but what about
While ( more data items)
{
copy data items onto end of buffer
if full{
write out buffer
clear buffer, copy in rest of last item.
}
}
I'd certainly not want to use xxprintf() for that
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Mike Smith
but what about
While ( more data items)
{
copy data items onto end of buffer
if full{
write out buffer
clear buffer, copy in rest of last item.
}
}
I'd certainly not want to use xxprintf() for that
This is what stdio does, funnily enough. See fwrite() etc.
--
\\
In message 199907152358.qaa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: if (strlen(buf) = sizeof(buf))
: return(error);
This can never be true with the strl functions They don't run off
the end, so strlen(buf) is always going to be sizeof(buf) since it
doesn't include the
In message 199907152244.paa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: What's really stupid is that most of the time you're trying to use
: these functions to fix code that looks like:
: strcpy(buf, str1);
: strcat(buf, str2);
: strcat(buf, str3);
: without overflowing buf. This
In message 199907152329.qaa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: Ugh. Take the first example in the paper; it rewrites as
:
: len = asprintf(path, %s/.foorc);
:
: as opposed to
:
: strlcat(path, homedir, sizeof(path));
: strlcat(path, /, sizeof(path));
:
In message 199907152358.qaa01...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: if (strlen(buf) = sizeof(buf))
: return(error);
This can never be true with the strl functions They don't run off
the end, so strlen(buf) is always going to be sizeof(buf) since it
doesn't include
On Wednesday, 14 July 1999 at 22:45:32 -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is
proprietary?
You make no sense.
What don't you understand? It makes plenty of sense to me (and the
answer is: yes).
If gdb should suffice for my
In message 19990715194203.a54...@mad Tim Vanderhoek writes:
: Looking at OpenBSD's actual definition of strlcat() which returns the
: number of chars that would have been in the final string is
: potentially non-useful, but not really too terrible.
No. It is useful. If you look at the
In message 199907160023.raa02...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: I still think this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. 8)
We mildly disagree here. The strl* functions are the end all, be all
of security. They are just designed to make the existing code that
uses static buffers easy
In message 199907160032.saa01...@harmony.village.org Warner Losh writes:
: We mildly disagree here. The strl* functions are the end all, be all
: of security.
NOTE: This should have read:
We mildly disagree here. The strl* functions are NOT the end all, be
all of security.
which changes its
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:28:52 CST, Warner Losh wrote:
I'm planning on committing their man page. I don't see problems with
it, purhaps people could point them out to me so that both our man
pages and theirs could be better.
As I've said already, there's too much in DESCRIPTION that should
In message 199907160023.raa02...@dingo.cdrom.com Mike Smith writes:
: I still think this is the wrong way to deal with the problem. 8)
We mildly disagree here. The strl* functions are the end all, be all
of security. They are just designed to make the existing code that
uses static
In message 81768.932085...@axl.noc.iafrica.com Sheldon Hearn writes:
: If you see my point, let me know and I'll send you an alternative
: strlcpy.3 .
I can see your point. I don't know if I'll like your man pages better
or not, but I'd be willing to give them a spin.
Warner
To Unsubscribe:
I found it when I went searching however I still can't get the netboot to
compile as it was designed for aout. Any ideas of why it wasn't moved to
elf along with the rest of the OS? Or if not how *I* can port it to elf
instead?
The intention is that loader(8) will provide the same
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:48:41PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Actually, applications are written assuming that malloc() will not
fail, generally speaking.
Is this really the case? I'm pretty sure I've _never_ ignored the
possibility of a NULL return from
but what about
While ( more data items)
{
copy data items onto end of buffer
if full{
write out buffer
clear buffer, copy in rest of last item.
}
}
I'd certainly not want to use xxprintf() for that
This is what stdio does, funnily enough. See
All I want for Christmas is a knob to disable overcommit.
And what I'm pretty sure the majority of the readers on this list want
is for those of you who really think it's necessary to do it yourselves.
What? Nobody who wants to disable the policy knows how to do it? Hmmm,
I've done some work on measuring things like interrupt response times
and the interval between two interesting events or steps in processing.
A cheap way to do this is to use the TSC register in the CPU, though you
then need to calibrate the frequency that the CPU really runs at.
If you're
Mike Smith wrote:
Is the matcd driver known to work on FreeBSD 3.2 ? If not, does anyone
have any estimate of the amount of effort that'd be required to fix it?
It works for some definitions of work. Firstly, there are three
different CDROM interfaces that can be hung off an SB16;
Hello Niall and Josef,
Thanks for your great help.
Finally I get all data on the disk back after the struggle on the
weekend :) I run the program you sent me, but I got nothing from it.
I guess the reason as follows:
(1) The program fetches each chunks of 16 blocks from the disk and
check if
I've been running VM Ware under NT for a few days now, booting FreeBSD and
other OS's.
In some quick testing:
The host machine is NT 4.0, SP5, 384MB RAM, dual 450 PII's.
The guest OS is FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE, configured with the VMWARE 512MB
disk, and 32MB RAM allocated
Compiling a generic
If there were a mechanism whereby one could opt out of the SIGKILL,
most if not all of the complaints would go away. SIGDANGER would
suffice, but even a rude hack would do in a pinch, such as the one
included below (untested). If you mmap real disk instead of sbrk'ing,
and use this procfs
And what I'm pretty sure the majority of the readers on this list want
is for those of you who really think it's necessary to do it yourselves.
What? Nobody who wants to disable the policy knows how to do it? Hmmm, I
wonder whether that's significant...
Sheldon, if you can't contribute
: fail, generally speaking.
:
:Is this really the case? I'm pretty sure I've _never_ ignored the
:possibility of a NULL return from malloc, and I've been using it
:for nearly 20 years. I usually print a message and exit, but I
:never ignore it. I thought that was pretty standard practise.
:
: In that scenario, the 512MB of swap I assigned to this machine would be
: dangerously low.
:
:With 13GB disks available for a couple of hundred bucks, my machines aren't
:going to run out of swap space any time soon, even if I commit to disk.
:
:All I want for Christmas is a knob to
Any use of str{,n}cat makes me gag. In the past I have used
a composable function that may be of interest. Composable in
the sense that the result can be immediately used as an arg
to another call and it doesn't have the O(N^2) behavior of
strcat. Such a function can be totally safe. Something
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
The are dozens of libc routines which call malloc internally and return
allocated storage. strdup(), opendir(), fopen(), setvbuf(), asprintf(),
and so forth. Dozens. And while we might check some of these for NULL,
we don't
Technical follow-up:
Contrary to what I previously said, a number of tests reveal that
Solaris, indeed, does not overcommit. All non-read only segments,
and all malloc()ed memory is reserved upon exec() or fork(), and the
reserved memory is not allowed to exceed the total memory. It makes
: The are dozens of libc routines which call malloc internally and return
: allocated storage. strdup(), opendir(), fopen(), setvbuf(), asprintf(),
: and so forth. Dozens. And while we might check some of these for NULL,
: we don't check them all, and the ones we do check we
:Technical follow-up:
:
:Contrary to what I previously said, a number of tests reveal that
:Solaris, indeed, does not overcommit. All non-read only segments,
:and all malloc()ed memory is reserved upon exec() or fork(), and the
:reserved memory is not allowed to exceed the total memory. It makes
: The are dozens of libc routines which call malloc internally and
return
: allocated storage. strdup(), opendir(), fopen(), setvbuf(),
asprintf(),
: and so forth. Dozens. And while we might check some of these for
NULL,
: we don't check them all, and the ones we do
Got no response from freebsd-questions.
can anyone here help ?
Please cc your reply to my email a/c.
thanks
--Vasudha
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:42:34 +0800 (SGT)
From: Vasudha Ramnath v...@krdl.org.sg
To: freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
Subject:
No, wait, I got that wrong I think.
Oh yah, I remember now. Hmm. How odd. I came across a case where
read() could return -1 and not set errno properly if errno
was already set, but a perusal of the kernel code seems to indicate
that this can't happen. Very
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
