On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
SNIP
Something like: Even a thread started by Dave might eventually--if
the topic has sufficiently departed from the original subject--lead to
a (small) improvement to OpenBSD?
-Otto
Exactly!
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
standard tools:
$ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | sh
Yes, this isn't robust against whitespace, either PLUS it's
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
standard tools:
$ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | sh
Yes,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
standard tools:
$
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Ray Lai wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of
I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
have occurred if I hadn't used find in my reply to Dave regarding PF
or BPF.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-cvsm=113991945111836w=2
Log message
I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
have occurred if I hadn't used find in my reply to Dave regarding PF
or BPF.
Something like ``please do not feed the Feustel again''?
Miod
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Diana Eichert wrote:
I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
have occurred if I hadn't used find in my reply to Dave regarding PF
or BPF.
http
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Tony Sterrett wrote:
I'm not sure I'd do it in that way. I'm thinking if BPF provided stateful
inspection is would be
more useful.
Asking for stateful inspection in bpf(4) is like wanting a carburettor
for a pushbike. You might be able to shoehorn it in there,
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
(this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've got time :-))
--
Lose, v., experience a loss, get rid
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
Your questions keep getting better and better. Just curious as to
whether you've heard of Google?
1. Make an /etc/bpf.conf and see what happens. Oh, wait, I don't see
a reference to a config file in man bpf
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
no, if you can't read a man page, you aren't qualified
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
(this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've got
Dave Feustel wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
Thanks,
Dave Feustel
One is a packet sniffer, one is a firewall.
However, you are not qualified to operate such tools.
Please disconnect your keyboard from your PC.
On 2006/02/13 13:00, Dave Feustel wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
(this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've got time
before?
Dereck,
Thanks for the support. However, my situation is not desparate.
By refusing to answer a question to which he indicated he had an
answer, Ted has left all of us hanging as to whether he *really*
knows what the differences are between the capabilities of pf and bpf.
*I* could
the capabilities of pf and bpf.
You're a complete tool. If I said what Ted said then that would be
possible. I think everyone here realizes that Ted knows the
differences.
*I* could certainly not testify that Ted actually knows the answer to
that question as he claims to. :-)
(BTW, I had
] wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst
wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
no, if you can't read a man page, you
are between the capabilities of pf and bpf.
*I* could certainly not testify that Ted actually knows the answer to
that question as he claims to. :-)
If he can code rthreads, I think it's pretty safe to say he
understands the differences between bpf and pf, those seem like some
really
On Monday 13 February 2006 14:52, Jason Crawford wrote:
You cannot learn all there is to know about bpf and how to effectively
use it in 10 minutes, so you, personally, do NOT need to use bpf at
all. It's what the other utilities like pf and tcpdump use to do what
they do. The utilities are
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
tcpdump.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:29:09PM -0500, Dave Feustel wrote:
So let's try a r e a l s i m p l e q u e s t i o n :
What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
I used this command, Dave:
find /usr/src -name *.c -exec grep bpf {} /dev/null \;
And discovered this list:
libpcap
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, one thing is for certain, the caustic responders to this thread aren't
psychic.
So let's try a r e a l s i m p l e q u e s t i o n :
What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
Please don't try to figure out why I am asking the question.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
tcpdump.
And there's more:
$ cd /usr/src
$ grep -lr bpf.h bin sbin usr.bin usr.sbin libexec
will give you a nice list.
-Otto
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 13 February 2006 14:52, Jason Crawford wrote:
You cannot learn all there is to know about bpf and how to effectively
use it in 10 minutes, so you, personally, do NOT need to use bpf at
all. It's what the other utilities like pf and
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
Oh c'mon Dave, use the tools that are given to you.
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
will find files that include references to bpf.
Your comments re: Ted are sad. I can't believe
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
^(a) ^(b)
(a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
(b)
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
^(a) ^(b)
(a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in
On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
^(a) ^(b)
(a) I doubt there are
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Stuart Henderson wrote:
(a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
man ksh
it's in quotes, this is handled by find, not the shell.
(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
why?
grep foo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
vs.
grep foo 1
grep foo
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
^(a) ^(b)
(a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
man ksh
The point being made is that '*.[ch]' is what you want. | does not
mean or in a character class in
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Greg Thomas wrote:
SNIP
(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
why?
grep foo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
vs.
grep foo 1
grep foo 2
grep foo 3
grep foo 4
grep foo 5
grep foo 6
grep foo 7
One of the nice things about misc is that even if a discussion
On Monday 13 February 2006 17:13, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
find /usr/src -name *.[c|h] -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
it's
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:28:22PM -0500, Jason Crawford wrote:
Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
argument length for the shell by using xargs, unless you did it inside
of each directory in /usr/src. That and well, explaining xargs to Dave
will end up leading
On 2006-02-13 18:10:53 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
As done by xargs?
grep foo 1
grep foo 2
grep foo 3
quote src=xargs(1)
Any arguments specified on the command line are given to the utility upon
each invocation, followed by some number of the arguments read from stan-
dard
On 2006/02/13 17:28, Jason Crawford wrote:
Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
argument length for the shell by using xargs
I haven't seen xargs do the wrong thing here. Embedded spaces annoy,
but that's what -print0 (to find) and -0 (to xargs) are for. I almost
BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
(this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've got time :-))
--
Lose, v., experience a loss, get rid of, lose the weight
Loose, adj., not tight, let go, free, loose clothing
know
about state which PF does. BPF is used (or can be used ) on a lot of
systems but its is a BSD Native as the named indicates. There has
been some research on adding state and performance enhancement in
projects named BPF+ and DBPF.
I'm looking at the tradeoff of porting bpf
On 2/13/06, Tony Sterrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at the tradeoff of porting bpf with states from linux to
OpenBSD from linux. Daniel Hartmeier in Design and Performance of
the OpenBSD Stateful Packet Filter (pf) says that pf is more
efficient than bpf, so it may be pointless.
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:36, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Time for you to start using Linux, Windows or OSX.
OpenBSD is clearly not fulfilling your needs
Your psychic abilities are failing you again.
and the lists are unfriendly.
So What?
http://www.oxide.org/cvs/tedu.html
Commit
dereck wrote:
The responses here are totally out of line.
So was his last comment in
http://groups.google.com/group/lucky.openbsd.misc/msg/942c4c6d5bc26fca
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:36, Marco Peereboom wrote:
http://www.oxide.org/cvs/tedu.html
Commit Statistics:
Total: 864
src: 834 (96.528%)
ports: 6 (0.694%)
www: 24
Hi Dave,
On 2006.02.14, at 12:53 PM, Dave Feustel wrote:
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
It might be best in the future to first outline what you've done to
research your questions and then ask the question.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, noob lenoobie wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
Why so many people is using xargs ?
I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
:
find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Dave Feustel wrote:
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
Please show your appreciation by educating yourself using the available
manpages (which represent a huge amount of work) before asking
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why not use -exec in find?
find . -type f -name ttt -exec rm {}\;
-- Pinski
On 2/13/06, Damien Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why so many people is using xargs ?
I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
:
find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
Instead of
rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
Because that will fail when
On Monday 13 February 2006 21:25, Damien Miller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Dave Feustel wrote:
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
Please show your appreciation by educating yourself using the available
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006/02/13 17:28, Jason Crawford wrote:
Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
argument length for the shell by using xargs
I haven't seen xargs do the wrong thing here. Embedded spaces annoy,
but that's
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why not use -exec in find?
find . -type f -name ttt
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why not use -exec in find?
find . -type f -name ttt -exec
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
rm is taking too much time.
No point, xargs does what I need it to do, and is much more efficient
than having find execute rm itself. The fewer times you call execve(2)
the
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
rm is taking too much time.
rm *is* a small program written in C. You need to consider how the
tools actually invoke it - think about it for a while.
-d
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Jason Crawford wrote:
SNIP
He couldn't even figure out how to find the applications that use bpf,
so I think figuring out all the features in a utility might be out of
his grasp...
Jason
hence my original suggestion, minus my | miscue of course.
On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Tony Sterrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at the tradeoff of porting bpf with states from linux to
OpenBSD from linux. Daniel Hartmeier in Design and Performance of
the OpenBSD Stateful Packet Filter (pf) says that pf is
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:32:53PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
Instead of
rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Tony Sterrett wrote:
I'm not sure I'd do it in that way. I'm thinking if BPF provided stateful
inspection is would be
more useful.
Asking for stateful inspection in bpf(4) is like wanting a carburettor
for a pushbike. You might be able to shoehorn it in there, but it
62 matches
Mail list logo
