Hi,
removed hackers, added virtualization.
On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Hello,
I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should be.
The best way probably is to finally get the “common” VIMAGE framework into HEAD
to allow easy
On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:10 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +, Bjoern A. Zeeb
bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net wrote:
Hi,
removed hackers, added virtualization.
On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Hello,
I’m (still)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:49:16 +0200, Mateusz Guzik mjgu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:53:53AM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Hi,
removed hackers, added virtualization.
On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Hello,
I’m (still) trying to figure
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:53:53 +, Bjoern A. Zeeb
bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net wrote:
Hi,
removed hackers, added virtualization.
On 12 Jun 2015, at 01:17 , kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Hello,
I’m (still) trying to figure out how jail-aware SysV IPC mechanism should be.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 03:45:34AM +0900, kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:49:16 +0200, Mateusz Guzik mjgu...@gmail.com wrote:
Fundamentally the basic question is how does the implementation cope
with processes having sysvshm mappings obtained from 2 different jails
Thank you for your reply!
Just appended, is this OK?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48471
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:24:43 -0700, Alfred Perlstein alf...@freebsd.org wrote:
Can a bugzilla or github request please be made for this so that it
doesn't get lost?
thank you,
Thank you!
On 6/11/15 7:04 PM, kikuc...@uranus.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Thank you for your reply!
Just appended, is this OK?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48471
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:24:43 -0700, Alfred Perlstein alf...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Can a bugzilla or github request
