Pavel. I have bit 'ol enterprise daemon running with established file
descriptors serving thousands of connections
which periodically require entropy. Now I run out of descriptors. I
can't establish new connections. but I should
now halt all the other ones that require entropy? I should raise
Pavel. I have bit 'ol enterprise daemon running with established file
descriptors serving thousands of connections
which periodically require entropy. Now I run out of descriptors. I
can't establish new connections. but I should
now halt all the other ones that require entropy? I should raise
convention in other system calls?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
>> Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
>> a way to influence the various libc people to
>&g
Or perhaps to put that another way, since you don't do minherit -
maybe a FORK_ZERO for madvise? or a similar way
to do that?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
> And thanks btw.
>
> I don't suppose you guys know who we should talk to about possibly
> getting MAP_
And thanks btw.
I don't suppose you guys know who we should talk to about possibly
getting MAP_INHERIT_ZERO minherit() support?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
> we have diffs pending that will do the syscall method until we start
> to see it in libc :)
>
> So bas
we have diffs pending that will do the syscall method until we start
to see it in libc :)
So basically we're going to put that in right away :)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
>> Hi Ted, yeah I u
Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
a way to influence the various libc people to
ensure they manage to provide a getentropy().
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:12:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On
Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
a way to influence the various libc people to
ensure they manage to provide a getentropy().
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:12:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig
we have diffs pending that will do the syscall method until we start
to see it in libc :)
So basically we're going to put that in right away :)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
Hi Ted, yeah I
And thanks btw.
I don't suppose you guys know who we should talk to about possibly
getting MAP_INHERIT_ZERO minherit() support?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Bob Beck b...@openbsd.org wrote:
we have diffs pending that will do the syscall method until we start
to see it in libc :)
So
Or perhaps to put that another way, since you don't do minherit -
maybe a FORK_ZERO for madvise? or a similar way
to do that?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bob Beck b...@openbsd.org wrote:
And thanks btw.
I don't suppose you guys know who we should talk to about possibly
getting
convention in other system calls?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
a way to influence the various libc people to
ensure they manage
>I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
>Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
>attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
>done privately.
>
> Luis
What? when we talk about the ethics of cooperating
>As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
>the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
>reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
>it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
>to OpenBSD,
- Forwarded message from Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of
action weakens us all.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8
- Forwarded message from Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of
action weakens us all.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
to OpenBSD, given
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
What? when we talk about the ethics of cooperating development
18 matches
Mail list logo
