No Subject

1999-08-09 Thread sniper
auth 2c4e7798 unsubscribe freebsd-stable [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message

Re: testsockbuf.c

1999-08-09 Thread Kip Macy
Would raising the number of NMBCLUSTERS help? Or would it just postpone the problem? Solaris/x86 also does not have any problems with the code. -Kip On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Marc Olzheim wrote: > > Isn't this a huge problem for ordinary users on a system?? I mean > >

Re: testsockbuf.c

1999-08-09 Thread Marc Olzheim
> Isn't this a huge problem for ordinary users on a system?? I mean > there aren't any user restrictions on sockets right? I imagine > there will be some sort of follow up on this exploit? Well, there is a 256k limit per socket of the buffer (I & O), try sysctl kern.maxsockbuf and you can limit

Re: testsockbuf.c

1999-08-09 Thread Greg Lynn
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Marc Olzheim wrote: > > > > I'm running 2.2.6 and this program WREAKED havoc on it :) > > It seems to work on NetBSD 1.3.2 too > Perhaps a BSD-ism ? > > Marc > Isn't this a huge problem for ordinary users on a system?? I mean there aren't any user restrictions on soc

Re: testsockbuf.c

1999-08-09 Thread Marc Olzheim
> > I'm running 2.2.6 and this program WREAKED havoc on it :) It seems to work on NetBSD 1.3.2 too Perhaps a BSD-ism ? Marc To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message

Kernel ppp (pppd) version 2.3.5 --> 2.3.8

1999-08-09 Thread Kenneth W Cochran
What is the "status" of pppd more recent than 2.3.5 (2.3.8, for example) making it into -STABLE (RELENG_3)? Not a show-stopper, but I'm getting a strange "received bad configure-nak/rej" (at LOG_ERR level while trying to negotiate CCP) every time I connect. I do not get this behavior under Linux

Re: continued crashes with 3.1-Stable

1999-08-09 Thread Chad R. Larson
As I recall, Seth wrote: > My intention, of course, was not to start a war over who could > generate the most load. You win. :) > > Keep in mind that load can represent the lack of processing capability > of your machine as jobs are queued up 'cause they can't find CPU time > in which to comple

Re: make installworld 3.2R -> 3.2S fails over NFS

1999-08-09 Thread Charles Owens
Rich Winkel wrote: > I just cvsupped fresh sources this weekend with the same result. > Does anyone else use nfs to "installworld"? > Or am I the only one having this problem? >From 3.0R to at least 3.1-stable I've seen this problem. The (annoying) workaround has been to do RW mounts of /usr/sr

testsockbuf.c

1999-08-09 Thread Greg Lynn
I'm running 2.2.6 and this program WREAKED havoc on it :) Rebooted and then when I tried delete the a.out I got a page fault. I wasn't able to read it though because the machine again rebooted :( Scary... I also got strange socket errors after the machine was rebooted those two times... -Greg

Re: make installworld 3.2R -> 3.2S fails over NFS

1999-08-09 Thread Rich Winkel
I just cvsupped fresh sources this weekend with the same result. Does anyone else use nfs to "installworld"? Or am I the only one having this problem? According to Rich Winkel: > > This is from 3.2 sources cvsup'd today. > The buildworld on the nfs server goes fine, the make.conf files are > id

Re: continued crashes with 3.1-Stable

1999-08-09 Thread Seth
My intention, of course, was not to start a war over who could generate the most load. You win. :) Keep in mind that load can represent the lack of processing capability of your machine as jobs are queued up 'cause they can't find CPU time in which to complete Ah. You're running Solaris. T