Update to Inkscape
There is a version 1.1.2 update to Inkscape which have some corrections I need. I hope OpenBSD will have this update soon. Best regards Freddy Fisker
Capturing redirected packets?
Hi! I have PF rules redirecting packets to an IP on one interface (rdomain 1) to the IP of another interface (rdomain 0): pass in log on rdomain 1 inet proto tcp to $ipv4b port 80 rdr-to $ipv4a port 8080 rtable 0 pass in log on rdomain 1 inet6 proto tcp to $ipv6b port 80 rdr-to $ipv6a port 8080 rtable 0 These rules work for IPv4 but initially not for IPv6. (That problem is now solved.) I was trying to figure out why and started using tcpdump(8). em0 has the IPs: ipv4a and ipv6a. em1 is in rdomain 1 and has the IPs: ipv4b and ipv6b. Both are connected to the same LAN. httpd(8) is configured to listen on ipv4a:80, ipv6a:80 with one (virtual) server and on ipv4a:8080, ipv6a:8080 with another, each serving a very simple index.html file that shows which server is responding. To debug I started: # tcpdump -n -e -ttt -l -i em0 'port 80 or 8080‘ # tcpdump -n -e -ttt -l -i em1 'port 80 or 8080‘ (Both in separate terminal windows at the same time.) Now from a second machine I access the web server: $ curl --url 'http://‘ Works fine, I see traffic in the tcpdump(8) for em0. $ curl --url 'http://‘ Works fine, I see traffic in the tcpdump(8) for em1 but not for em0. $ curl --url 'http://[]‘ Works fine, I see traffic in the tcpdump(8) for em0. $ curl --url 'http://[]‘ Timeout! I see traffic in the tcpdump(8) for em1 but not for em0. This was the one I was ultimately trying to debug but as the trace on the IPv4 version doesn’t work as expected I was momentarily at a loss. I have since solved the actual problem by setting: # sysctl net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1 But I still don’t see the redirected traffic in the tcpdump(8) for em0. I don’t understand the second and fourth results. Why does the tcpdump(8) for em0 not show the redirected packets? I am likely missing something obvious here. How can I capture the redirected packets? Thanks! Mike
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
Paul Yep, that is definitely the authorative source. I've been using archive.org for a couple decades that I forget openbsd.org website uses CVS. 73 On February 8, 2022 9:11:56 AM MST, Paul de Weerd wrote: >On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:54:08AM -0700, deich...@placebonol.com wrote: >| Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. > >Or just the CVS repository. The openbsd.org website is under revision >control, there's 26 years of history available over at > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/ > >You may specifically be interested in the history of the goals and >policy pages that were mentioned in this thread: > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/goals.html > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/policy.html > >Cheers, > >Paul > >-- >>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ >+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/ >
Re: C2 state on AC/battery
On Feb 07 13:19:20, guent...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 10:04 AM Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > On Feb 05 13:41:25, guent...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 2:54 AM Jan Stary wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is current/amd64 on a Thinkapd T420s, dmesgs below.
> > > > It seems that C2 is or is not supported depending on
> > > > whether the machine boots on AC or on battery
> > > > (judging by three boots of each).
> > > > Is this intended?
> > >
> > > The acpicpu driver is reporting what ACPI told it; presumably the authors
> > > of the AML intended this change as a way to reduce power consumption.
> > >
> > > Now, ACPI provides a mechanism for the OS to tell it to notify the OS if
> > > the contents of the _CST table changes and at least in some cases
> > > acpicpu registers for that and if called it would write new acpicpu lines
> > > to the dmesg.
> > >
> > > If you're not seeing those when plugging/unplugging,
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > > there are two
> > > possibilities:
> > > * does the AML on your system actually change the values and trigger the
> > > notify?
> > > * is acpicpu actually registering the callback correctly?
> > >
> > > I would suggest adding a printf() right before the aml_register_notify()
> > > call in acpicpu.c to see if it's actually being hit,
> >
> > Probably not: I added a printf() right there
> > but nothing shows in dmesg when plugging/unpluging.
> >
>
> That aml_register_notify() path is a *boot* time path,
> when acpicpu is attaching.
> What printf() did you add and did it appear during boot? If
> not, then the OS isn't registering the notify callback.
Index: dev/acpi/acpicpu.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpicpu.c,v
retrieving revision 1.91
diff -u -p -r1.91 acpicpu.c
--- dev/acpi/acpicpu.c 9 Jan 2022 05:42:37 - 1.91
+++ dev/acpi/acpicpu.c 8 Feb 2022 07:59:59 -
@@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ acpicpu_attach(struct device *parent, st
0, sc->sc_acpi->sc_fadt->pstate_cnt);
}
+ printf("aml register notify\n");
aml_register_notify(sc->sc_devnode, NULL,
acpicpu_notify, sc, ACPIDEV_NOPOLL);
It does not show during boot.
> Please send a report to bugs@ with sendbug as root,
> including the acpidump output.
Just did.
Thanks for the insight,
Jan
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:54:08AM -0700, deich...@placebonol.com wrote: | Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. Or just the CVS repository. The openbsd.org website is under revision control, there's 26 years of history available over at http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/ You may specifically be interested in the history of the goals and policy pages that were mentioned in this thread: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/goals.html http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/policy.html Cheers, Paul -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. On February 8, 2022 8:39:46 AM MST, Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote: >On Tue, Feb 8, 2022, at 15:25, Nick Holland wrote: >> Probably be one of these two pages, I think: >> >> https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html >> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html >> >> I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? >> 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work >> --> you might want to consider the GPL license >> >> 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly >> --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. >> >> The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be >> reused, rather than re-invented poorly. > >Dear Nick, > >It is precisely this topic, but I think the passage that I read before >was even better. I appreciated the passage of interest for its >arrogance, similar to your phrasing of the Microsoft Question >but more blunt. > >The passage was maybe a paragraph long, and I think it was >an interjection to some other topic rather than its own webpage. > >It could be that the recent goals and policy documents were >adapted from the earlier phrasing, perhaps to cater to people >who don't share my appreciation of arrogance. > >With appreciation, >Ibsen >
dmesg - cpu, smt, core, package
Hi all, in one supermicro box in dmesg i'm seeing this smc24# dmesg | grep smt cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0 cpu1: smt 0, core 1, package 0 cpu2: smt 0, core 2, package 0 cpu3: smt 0, core 3, package 0 cpu4: smt 0, core 4, package 0 cpu5: smt 0, core 5, package 0 cpu6: smt 0, core 8, package 0 cpu7: smt 0, core 9, package 0 cpu8: smt 0, core 10, package 0 cpu9: smt 0, core 11, package 0 cpu10: smt 0, core 12, package 0 cpu11: smt 0, core 13, package 0 cpu12: smt 0, core 16, package 0 cpu13: smt 0, core 17, package 0 cpu14: smt 0, core 18, package 0 cpu15: smt 0, core 19, package 0 cpu16: smt 0, core 20, package 0 cpu17: smt 0, core 21, package 0 cpu18: smt 0, core 24, package 0 cpu19: smt 0, core 25, package 0 cpu20: smt 0, core 26, package 0 cpu21: smt 0, core 27, package 0 cpu22: smt 0, core 28, package 0 cpu23: smt 0, core 29, package 0 should core be identical to cpu number? this is from dell r7515 r7515# dmesg | grep smt cpu0: smt 0, core 0, package 0 cpu1: smt 0, core 1, package 0 cpu2: smt 0, core 2, package 0 cpu3: smt 0, core 3, package 0 cpu4: smt 0, core 4, package 0 cpu5: smt 0, core 5, package 0 cpu6: smt 0, core 6, package 0 cpu7: smt 0, core 7, package 0 cpu8: smt 0, core 8, package 0 cpu9: smt 0, core 9, package 0 cpu10: smt 0, core 10, package 0 cpu11: smt 0, core 11, package 0 cpu12: smt 0, core 12, package 0 cpu13: smt 0, core 13, package 0 cpu14: smt 0, core 14, package 0 cpu15: smt 0, core 15, package 0 cpu16: smt 1, core 0, package 0 cpu17: smt 1, core 1, package 0 cpu18: smt 1, core 2, package 0 cpu19: smt 1, core 3, package 0 cpu20: smt 1, core 4, package 0 cpu21: smt 1, core 5, package 0 cpu22: smt 1, core 6, package 0 cpu23: smt 1, core 7, package 0 cpu24: smt 1, core 8, package 0 cpu25: smt 1, core 9, package 0 cpu26: smt 1, core 10, package 0 cpu27: smt 1, core 11, package 0 cpu28: smt 1, core 12, package 0 cpu29: smt 1, core 13, package 0 cpu30: smt 1, core 14, package 0 cpu31: smt 1, core 15, package 0
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022, at 15:25, Nick Holland wrote: > Probably be one of these two pages, I think: > > https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html > https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? > 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work > --> you might want to consider the GPL license > > 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly > --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. > > The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be > reused, rather than re-invented poorly. Dear Nick, It is precisely this topic, but I think the passage that I read before was even better. I appreciated the passage of interest for its arrogance, similar to your phrasing of the Microsoft Question but more blunt. The passage was maybe a paragraph long, and I think it was an interjection to some other topic rather than its own webpage. It could be that the recent goals and policy documents were adapted from the earlier phrasing, perhaps to cater to people who don't share my appreciation of arrogance. With appreciation, Ibsen
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On 2/6/22 11:57 PM, Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote: My great and good friends, Like 20 years ago while trying to install OpenBSD for the first time I read a short passage in OpenBSD documentation that I really liked. Does anyone know where I can find it? The passage that said very directly that we license OpenBSD permissively because we know our software is especially good in comparison to the consistently broken proprietary majority and we prefer that proprietary projects copy our good software so they don't create more broken software. With appreciation, Ibsen Probably be one of these two pages, I think: https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work --> you might want to consider the GPL license 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be reused, rather than re-invented poorly. Nick.
