On 15/09/2015 17:05, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> I see procd got an update. Any reason this patch was left out?
>
> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:05 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Is there an ETA for merging this?
>>
>> On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 19:14 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>>> I'm
I see procd got an update. Any reason this patch was left out?
On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:05 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Is there an ETA for merging this?
>
> On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 19:14 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> > I'm intending for this fix to be backported to CC as well.
> >
> >
Is there an ETA for merging this?
On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 19:14 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> I'm intending for this fix to be backported to CC as well.
>
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 09:59 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> > OpenSSL session caches create shared memory segments that appear as
> >
I'm intending for this fix to be backported to CC as well.
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 09:59 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
OpenSSL session caches create shared memory segments that appear as
files under /dev/shm. If there is not enough room there, execution
terminates with SIGBUS upon access.
what kind of usage do you expect ?
On 11/07/2015 03:58, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
Since the /dev filesystem is tiny, /dev/shm needs to live somewhere
else.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Gimpelevich dan...@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
--- a/initd/early.c 2015-06-19 14:01:25.0 -0700
+++
OpenSSL session caches create shared memory segments that appear as
files under /dev/shm. If there is not enough room there, execution
terminates with SIGBUS upon access. Even a single instance would exceed
512K.
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 11:50 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
what kind of usage do you
Since the /dev filesystem is tiny, /dev/shm needs to live somewhere
else.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Gimpelevich dan...@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
--- a/initd/early.c 2015-06-19 14:01:25.0 -0700
+++ b/initd/early.c 2015-07-10 15:04:23.270143065 -0700
@@ -66,16 +66,20 @@
