[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
What is the best way to go about logging a user out given their tty? I had
a couple of ideas:
(a) open their tty and set the baud rate to 0
Probably wouldn't be very effective.
(b) use tcgetpgrp to get the process group id of the
The original question still stands, and I'm quite interested in hearing
an answer.
I think Ryan's looking for an equivalent to Solaris' F_FREESP fcntl; I'm
not aware that one exists in FBSD - right?
jan
--
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Ryan Thompson wrote:
(b) use tcgetpgrp to get the process group id of the foreground process
group on that tty, then with that info use libkvm to find the session
leader's pid and send it a SIGHUP
Why not just kill their controlling shell?
I believe that what I'm
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Vadim Belman wrote:
I've tried to use uplt instead of lpt and got a kernel panic. From kernel
stack trace I found that it happens due to a wrong pointer to dev structure
being passed to usbd_do_request_flags. I've made a PR for the problem
(despite
Hi All,
This is a repost of my letter to freebsd-bugs which apparently went to
/dev/null or whereabouts. Since this is a developers' mailing list could
anybody with intimate knowledge of how FreeBSD threads work have a look ?
I do need this problem solved soon, please help.
I was pursuing a
Never mind. I'm on drugs. That, and the PC industry loves selling "identical"
machines that aren't identical under the cover. I checked the chipset, and it
only does ATA33, unlike the other machine I bought from the same place, same
catalog number, same order, that does ATA66.
One note of
:The original question still stands, and I'm quite interested in hearing
:an answer.
:
:I think Ryan's looking for an equivalent to Solaris' F_FREESP fcntl; I'm
:not aware that one exists in FBSD - right?
:
:jan
:
:--
:jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
No,
a) Kill the controlling shell. This will leave some processes behind that
are no longer part of the user's session (like programs that have
detatched from the terminal and become daemons), and processes that
were never part of the user's session (like processes that they started
On 30-Oct-00 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:24:17PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
I think that the days of the 'dangerously dedicated partition' are
numbered.
Not quite. We don't do slices on the Alpha -- in fact our slice code
royally screws the Alpha users as it
Title: Building a custom kernel in 4.1
Hello,
I am familiar with the procedure of building a custom kernel under
FreeBSD3.3 but having a lot of difficulty when trying to follow the
procedure for FreeBSD4.1. Can anyone summarize the exact steps to build a
custom kernel under
Hello,
Did you follow these steps?
http://snad.ncsl.nist.gov/itg/nistswitch/install.html
According to 1.1, support for versions of Freebsd 3.3 is 'in the works'.
-mrh
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Hao Zhang wrote:
Hello,
I am familiar with the procedure of building a custom kernel
I wrote a little line program to do a revoke(), it was basically
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { revoke(argv[1]); }
Now this doesn't kill a darn thing. And you should be aware of it! But it
does forcibly "close" any open fd's pointing at the tty in question, and
most programs
Hi all,
a week ago I asked this already on -questions but got no reply.
Therefore I pick -hackers as a more appropriate forum.
During my holidays I found the time (after a broken VCR and some crashed
hard disks) to work on video and sound recording on my new PC (details
below).
However, while
Hi,
There are a lot of information about FreeBSD in the Handbook
(http://www.freebsd.org/handbook), But if you want to have a deep look
into the kernel (BSD in general) you may buy this book:
The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System
ISBN 0-201-54979-4 , 580 pages
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:03:49PM +0100, Robert Eckardt wrote:
However, while /dev/dsp works fine for 8bit /dev/dspW doesn't work for
16bit at all. 16bit mode gives some cracks and beeps, nothing more, as can
be seen from the following hexdumps:
16-bit recording on the SB16 is known to be
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Stefan Aeschbacher wrote:
I am running 4.1-stable updated ca 22.10.00.
I set up a jail, started it but I have no network at all.
I made an alias for the used IP address, I ran /etc/rc
with the following output:
snip
How are you starting the jail? I use this in my boot
Joe Greco wrote:
I wrote a little line program to do a revoke(), it was basically
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { revoke(argv[1]); }
Now this doesn't kill a darn thing. And you should be aware of it! But it
does forcibly "close" any open fd's pointing at the tty in
Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For normal users, ls -a lists all files, not counting . and .., but
for root it does list all files.
No, it always lists all files.
ls -A lists all files for normal users, but omits . and .. for root.
No, it always lists all files except for "." and "..".
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:10:56PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote:
Just doing the disklabel -w -r followed by the disklabel -B is creating
a dangerously dedicated disk,
Actually this is a "fully dedicated" disk. (made to look like a 50MB or
so disk to M$ products)
Sysinstall is used to create a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Dillon
writes:
:I think there is more there than anyone wants to find out. Can you commit
:your fixes to make disklabel label virgin slices please?
:
:John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
Yah, it's done. I'll forward merge
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:24:17PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
I think that the days of the 'dangerously dedicated partition' are
numbered.
Not quite. We don't do slices on the Alpha -- in fact our slice code
royally screws the Alpha users as it isn't nicely layered and thus hard
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
On 30-Oct-00 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:24:17PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
I think that the days of the 'dangerously dedicated partition' are
numbered.
Not quite. We don't do slices on the Alpha -- in fact our
I've messed with these a lot and I'm pretty sure that the bios is trying
to be 'compatible' with the geometry information it finds on the disk,
Theoretically, if you set up a disk with one brand X disk controller,
you'll get a different fake CHS mapping than you would with a brand Y
controller.
David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:10:56PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote:
Just doing the disklabel -w -r followed by the disklabel -B is creating
a dangerously dedicated disk,
Actually this is a "fully dedicated" disk. (made to look like a 50MB or
so disk to M$ products)
Well, for one thing, 99% of the PC architecture assumes that the first
track is reserved for the MBR so to speak, so putting boot1 in the MBR
is already bogus.
but boot one replaces the MBR with better code and an fdisk table. It
does it have a 'bogus' fdisk table in it already. The only
On 30-Oct-00 Matthew Jacob wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
On 30-Oct-00 David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:24:17PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
I think that the days of the 'dangerously dedicated partition' are
numbered.
Not quite. We don't do
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
On 28-Oct-00 Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Dillon
writes:
:Do you have dangerously dedicated mode on by chance? Some
:SCSI BIOS's _will_ crash with this if you use dangerously
27 matches
Mail list logo
