On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 02:18:31PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Firewalling should be implemented on the hosts, perhaps with centralized
> > policy management. In such a situation, there would be no reason to filter
> > on funny IP options.
>
> That's madness. If you have to implement
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:09:27PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> > > Firewalling should be implemented on the hosts, perhaps with centralized
> > > policy management. In such a situation, there would be no reason to filter
> > > on funny IP
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:10:25AM +0100, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > It's this kind of ignorance that makes the internet a less secure and stable
> > place.
>
> You have obviously absolutely no idea what
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Dominik Kubla wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:35:43PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> ...
> > An attack against an Xray system is much more likely to come from inside the
> > companies network.
> ...
>
> We are not tal
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:29:52PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> > There is nothing silly with the decision, davem is simply a modern day
> > internet hero.
>
> No. If it were something essential, perhaps, but it's just a minor
> performance tweak to cut packet loss over congested links. It's
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:37:48PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Conclusions:
>
> > For a NIC which cannot do scatter/gather/checksums, the zerocopy
> > patch makes no change in throughput in all case.
>
> > For a NIC which can do
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:04:17AM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
> > those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets
> > through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just
> > because they are not supporting an *experimental*
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> > Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are.
>
> Let me guess: you're a lawyer? :-)
>
> This is a very strange definition: if someone makes a change such that
> their
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 05:11:20PM +, James Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
> > The simplest thing in this chaos is to fix the firewall because it is in
> > violation to begin with.
>
> It is not in violation, and you can't fix it: it's not yours.
[snip]
> > It's too bad we end up defining
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:08:40PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > A sufficiently paranoid firewall should block requests that he doesn't
> > fully understand. ECN was in this category, so old firewalls are
> > "right" to block these. (Sending an 'RST' is not
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 06:37:05PM +0100, Carlos Parada (EST) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to set up an IPv6 network in Linux kernel 2.4.0-test10. In this
> network I'm using just 3 boxs and I would use static routes.
> __ _
> | A ||B | | C |
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Ingo Oeser writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > The idea is that the one thing one tends to optimize for new cpus
> > > is the memcpy/memset implementation. What better way to shield
>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:48:06PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > Ingo Oeser writes:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:27:48AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 07:07:51PM -0400, Duncan Gauld wrote:
> Hi,
> This seems a silly question but - I have an intel celeron 800mhz CPU and thus
> it is of the Coppermine breed. But under cpu selection when configuring the
> kernel, should I select PIII or PII/Celeron? Just wondering, since
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:09:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
> >
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rogier Wolff)
> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > > >
> > > > # l /mnt/d1
> > > > total 16
> > >
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:11:59PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
[snip]
> The point is: The code in that "magic page" that considers the
> tradeoff is KERNEL code, which is designed to care about such
> trade-offs for that machine. Glibc never knows this stuff and
> shouldn't, because it is already
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 09:10:49PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> Not to mention in various comments and documentation. Deregister,
> according to www.m-w.com (and many other dictionaries), is not a word.
> Is there some sort of historical significance to this being used, in
> place of
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:44:36PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On 03 May 2001 09:13:00 +0200,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 30.04.01 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> PS: Hmm, how do you do timewarp for just one userland appliation
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:19:15PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That means that for fooling closed-source statically-linked binary,
>
> If they are using glibc then you have the right to the object to link
> with the library and the library source under the LGPL. I dont know of any
> app using its
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:31PM -0400, God wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > 2) They certainly are. Every once in a while they go through a period of
> >silently dropping all email coming from hosts that don't have PTRs.
> >This wou
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:10:29AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyone have any friends at AOL? I wonder what the effect on these
> > non-conformant sites would be if AOL's proxy's became ECN enabled?
>
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
[snip]
> If you're deploying a cache partition such as /var/squid (possibly
> having log files in another /var/log partition on another disk drive),
> what's the point about not running (e. g.) mke2fs and squid -z on boot,
> as
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think with the growing acceptance of ReiserFS in the Linux
> > community, it is tiresome to have to apply a patch again and again
> > just to get working NFS. 2.2 NFS horrors all over again.
>
> The zero copy patches were basically
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 09:02:13AM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans Reiser) writes:
> > If I can't get information about BSD v. Linux 2.4 networking code,
> > then reiserfs has to get ported to BSD which will be both nice and a
> > pain to do.
>
> So we would get
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:28:43PM +0100, Jorge David Ortiz Fuentes wrote:
[snip]
> "task" that can be run. Using this structure makes easier to identify
> which threads belong to the same process and tools such as ps or top
> show the TID as a field.
>
> I understand that changing this in
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:14:15PM +0100, David Balazic wrote:
[snip]
> Hardware Level caching is only good for OSes which have broken
> drivers and broken caching (like plain old DOS).
>
> Linux does a good job in caching and cache control at software
> level.
Read caching, yes. But for
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
> Hello linux-kernel,
>
> Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a userland process
> connect out, or accept connections) using non-local IPs? By "non-local"
> I just mean IPs that aren't assigned to an interface, but do
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:46:39PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:30:58PM -0800, Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:
> > > Hello linux-kernel,
> > >
> > > Is there any way to conduct TCP sessions (IE have a use
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:17:19AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > > There are some scheduler patches that are not part of the
> > > main kernel tree at this point (mostly since they have yet to
> > > be optimized for the common case)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:34:18PM -0800, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> The I/O APIC code for 2.2 contains a little trick which sets the destination
> to 0 to disable an I/O APIC entry. This apparently trips up the I/O APIC
> on AMD-760MP systems causing a lockup during boot.
[snip]
I'd love you
attention. I highly doubt the world needs
another Netware, and I doubt a group with the level of maturity
you've demonstrated could even pull it off, but I wish you luck.
--
Gregory Maxwell
(awating the next package of legal threats from TRG, it's standard fare
when you point out what a jerk
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
[snip]
> If I give you a binary-only module which can either be loaded as a
> driver or, maybe with some glue code, linked into the kernel and some
> instructions how to do this, I am _not_at_all_ in violation of any
> GPL. Because I
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> Then they need more competant admins. It isnt _hard_ to transproxy outgoing
> smtp traffic via a spamtrapper that checks for valid src/destination and
> headers.
I can't believe that you are suggesting this.
The moment you being to start encouraging
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ricky Beam wrote:
[snip]
> As an aside, they also have/had agressive transparent web proxying in
> the network... everything on port 80 coming and going is/was cached.
> EVERYTHING.
Ugh. If bandwidth is a problem, charge them by the Gb and let them save
money by reducing
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Ehh? And exactly _how_ would a debugger help it.
> >
> > Especially as Alan quoted an example of a driver bug that didn't get fixed
> > for several months because the maintainer didn't have the hardware.
> >
> > What would a debugger have done?
>
> Let
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> I guarantee you that IT managers and CTOs do not share your enthusiasm for
> slow, correct coding when faced with their business being down, their
> revenue stream being interrupted and their stock options losing value.
[snip]
No company
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you'd read what I wrote in it's entirety, you'd know that I'm very well
> aware of this perspective.
I read it. I just didn't agree with the level of importance I felt you
were assigning to corporate use.
> I don't need to have the volumes of
Hi. I've had great success with your VIA 82Cxxx in 2.4test9 on a new
system I'm helping a friend setup for his mom. Unfortunately, I'm not
having so much luck with the rest of 2.4.
Because of general stability issues, I need to move back to 2.2 on this
system.
However, the VIA 82Cxxx driver
On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 02:57:45AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> but in the meantime there is good confirmation.
> This really is a bug in gcc 2.95.2.
... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 04:55:02PM -, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> This probably is not the right lpace, but can't think of where else to ask
>
> Has anyone implemented a /proc device or user program to interrogate the
> enviromental attirbutes (temp, voltage etc) that many motherboards provide
>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 08:56:51PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, bert hubert wrote:
[snip]
> >Well, I think that we need to make some kind of PR push about ECN. Linux
> >right now has enough clout and respect to be able to be used as a
> >'Technology Push' argument - and it
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:06:33PM +0100, Alex Buell wrote:
> With regards to this thread, looking at the headers of this post, he
> appears to be posting from 216.27.3.45. Running a traceroute produces
> the following:
[snip]
> Feel free to send complaints to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get his
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:24:32AM +0330, Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have download kernel-2.2.17 from kernel.org and wanna to compile it under
> redhat 7 . when compiling start after few minutes show me this error message
> :
Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:15:08AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:43:30 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > Due to bugs in the Linux kernel, it may only be compiled by certain versions
> > of GCC. GCC 2.7.2 or EGCS 1.1.2 are only supported compilers
>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:00:14AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:36:14 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > I am now compiling my 2.2.18-pre kernels with gcc-2.95 and work fine. It is
> > > 2.96 what is broken.
> >
> > It compiles.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:12:06PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...]
> > If you are going to upgrade, you should at least consider going to
> > 2.4.0test-flavor-of-week, so that your crashes will at least contribute
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 12:11:04PM -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
> One notable difference between Linux and NT threads and processes is
> that it is more expensive to create new processes on NT than on Linux,
> and on NT thread creation is cheaper than process creation. Typically
>
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:45:23PM -0500, Rafal Boni wrote:
[snip]
> The box in question is running the linux-ha.org heartbeat package,
> which is a RT-scheduled, mlock()'ed process, and as such should
> get as good service as the box is able to mange. Often, under
> high
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:53:16PM -0500, John O'Donnell wrote:
> Only on my company's e-mail server. My company typically gets "zero"
> emails from outside the US. If I get a piece of spam (sorry they are
> typically from outside the US), I just block the entire .com.br domain.
> I get far
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:16:15PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other
> numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of
> protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr
> or .br.
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
> various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two
>
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> > majority. This is not
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:11:19PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> No complaints are seen at startup, yet I still have no shared memory:
>
> # cat /proc/meminfo
> total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached:
> Mem: 130293760 123133952 71598080
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:32:49PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If I were packaging a Linux distribution, I'd be sure to have ECN disabled
> > by default, FWIW.
>
> Probably the case. However the more people who pester the faulty sites the
> better. Did you ask the person how many reports he
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 05:24:19PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The authors of the NTFL layer dont place any additional restrictions on your
> use of the code either. They are merely warning you that if you use it in
> some ways you are going to get your ass kicked by a third party. WHats the
>
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:07:20AM -0500, Robert Morris wrote:
> I'm building Linux-based routers and need to be able to forward as
> many packets per second as possible over gigabit ethernet. It turns
[snip]
Hmm.. Kernel code written in C++..
Click is intesting.
You people are nuts. :)
-
To
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:40:48PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 01:45:18PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. Kernel code written in C++..
> > You people are nuts. :)
>
> Nobody benefits from having such a closed mind. While I don'
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:02:47AM +, Alan Cox wrote:
[snip]
> Now that is nice. The end user perceived effect is that folks with faulty
> firewalls have horrible slow web sites with a 3 or 4 second wait for each
> page. The perfect incentive. If only someone could do the same to path mtu
>
After seeing the modprobe local root exploit today, I asked myself why
kmod executes modprobe with full root and doesn't drop some capabilities
first.
Why? It wouldn't close the hole, but it would narrow it down.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:29:31PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Hopefully, sanity will rule out here. I information being leaked from
> what I reviewed was the ability for a hacker to exploit port 524 and use
> it
> to obtain a local copy of the entire routing table for other IP servers
>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:53:19AM -0500, Charles Turner, Ph.D. wrote:
[snip]
> I was terribly wrong. This Red Hat version is irrevocably defective.
[snip]
> (3) It "sort of" worked. However, network daemons kept
> dropping core. X would eventually crash, leaving the
> terminal in
Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
their "SWC 3.0" simply mean 'spec web cheat' and involve implimenting the
specweb dyanmic stuff in x86
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:50:13PM -0600, Brian Wolfe wrote:
[snip]
> From the debate raging here is what I gathered is acceptable
>
> make it blow up fataly and immediatly if it detects Red Hat + gcc
>2.96-red_hat_broken(forgot version num)
> make it provide a URL to get the patch to
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:31:57AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> How well is this card supported for it's capture capabilities and dual head?
Capture and dual head are almost totally unsupported without using a
proprietary, binary only driver chunk which will soundly place your system as
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:06:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> More to add on the gcc 2.96 problems. After compiling a Linux 2.4.1
> kernel on gcc 2.91, running SCI benchmarks, then compiling on RedHat
> 7.1 (Fischer) with gcc 2.96, the 2.96 build DROPPED 30% in throughput
> from the gcc
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:00:25AM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> How big do you have your icons set that you can actually read stuff in
> it?
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Mordechai Ovits wrote:
>
> > In newer file managers, the icon of a C file is a tiny image of the first
> > few lines of text.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:24:21PM +0530, Vineet Mehta wrote:
> I m a beginner so please dont mind..
> How do we calculate the network utilization of a particular ethernet LAN
> segment?
> Whata are the issues involved?
You start by asking in the right place.
Then, considering your mail user
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:20:54PM -0800, Mike Pontillo wrote:
[snip]
> Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
> a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
> internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 05:47:10PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:57:14AM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > The XOR patent and the fraudulent enforcement of it is the purest
> > > embodiment of everything that is wrong with the
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:47:24AM +0100, Ookhoi wrote:
[snip]
> We have exactly the same problem but in our case it depends on the
> following three conditions: 1, kernel 2.4 (2.2 is fine), 2, windows ip
> header compression turned on, 3, a free internet access provider in
> Holland called
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:00:55PM -0800, Nye Liu wrote:
[snip]
> This is NOT what I'm seeing at all.. the kernel load appears to be
> pegged at 100% (or very close to it), the user space app is getting
> enough cpu time to read out about 10-20Mbit, and FURTHERMORE the kernel
> appears to be
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:13:30PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
> If you want stability, run the real Linus 2.4. If you want all the
> really minor bug fixes and more of the experimental code, run -ac. If
> you want production quality, run your kernel on a test server before
>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 04:38:48PM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > Then I tried kernel 2.4.1. I issued exactly the same hdparm command.
> > i got in syslog the message: "ide0: Speed warnings UDMA 3/4/5 is not
> > functional"!
> I had the same problem.
> Add
> append="ide0=ata66 ide1=ata66
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:07:22AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> I have just received notice that my machines will no longer be
> provided access to "The Internet".
>
> "Effective on or before 16:00:00 local time, the only personal
> computers that will be allowed Internet access are
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:41:11PM +0200, Erik van Asselt wrote:
> Hm i have the Promise raid source for 2.2 kernel modules so what do you mean
> by opensource signatures
>
> i have it working for 2.2 kernels but i can't get it to work properly in 2.4
> So if someone want to look at the
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:03:28PM -0800, Jonathan Morton wrote:
[snip]
> Issue 3:
> The OOM killer was frequently killing the "wrong" process. I have
> developed an improved badness selector, and devised a possible means of
> specifying "don't touch" PIDs at runtime. PID 1 is never
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:43:52PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> I'm really sick of being buried in useless information. The signal
> gets lost in the noise. It is easy to discard automatically generated
> bug reports, and way too annoying to wade through the crud.
>
> When network
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 03:05:47PM -0500, Adam wrote:
> BZZT, wrong. Headers were forged intentionally to show pine since it is
> what Linus uses.
>
> I had a joke for this year as well, but I didn't hear back from Linus if
> that's cool with him to send it to LKML (I suppose I should have asked
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:24:46PM -0400, Dave wrote:
> I am having a very strange problem in linux 2.4 kernels. I have not set
> any iptables rules at all, and there is no firewall blocking any of my
> outgoing traffic. At what seems like random selection, I can not connect
> to IP's yet I can
101 - 180 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
