Hi everyone,
I had to type this off the screen. My USB keyboard does not work
at the ddb prompt so I cannot provide more information.
xhci_pipe_open: pipe=0x80493000 addr=2 depth=1 port=9 speed=2
xhci0: dev 1 dci 3 (epAddr=0x81)
xhci0: speed 1 mps 8 rhport 9 route 0x0
xhci0: max ESIT
Hi,
../../../../dev/usb/xhci.c:1109
2c26: 4a 8d 14 ba lea(%rdx,%r15,4),%rdx
2c2a: 48 8d 44 10 01 lea0x1(%rax,%rdx,1),%rax
2c2f: 49 8b 84 c5 b8 05 00mov0x5b8(%r13,%rax,8),%rax
2c36: 00
2c37: 89 08
Hi,
my X240 has 2 USB3.0 ports. I use one of them to connect a urtwn(4)
usb wifi dongle since the internal intel wifi is not (yet) supported.
After the recent commit to enable xhci, I tried to switch the BIOS
USB3 support mode from 'disabled' to 'auto'. This make urtwn0 attach
to the xhci hub,
Hello Dimitris,
On 09/11/14(Sun) 12:39, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
Hi everyone,
I had to type this off the screen. My USB keyboard does not work
at the ddb prompt so I cannot provide more information.
xhci_pipe_open: pipe=0x80493000 addr=2 depth=1 port=9 speed=2
xhci0: dev 1 dci
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 03:01:47PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
Thanks for the report. I just committed a fix for this. The problem
was in the code closing the pipe. This would only matter for devices
closing opening multiple times their pipes, like mouses or keyboards
when they are
Hi,
our patch implementation supports lines with a maximum of 8192 chars,
which should be reasonably large enough. If files cannot be patched in
memory, they are written into temporary files -- also known as plan b.
For plan b, the maximum line length is 1024, which is still more than
enough.
Matthieu Herrb writes:
Hi,
my X240 has 2 USB3.0 ports. I use one of them to connect a urtwn(4)
usb wifi dongle since the internal intel wifi is not (yet) supported.
After the recent commit to enable xhci, I tried to switch the BIOS
USB3 support mode from 'disabled' to 'auto'. This make
Hi all,
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files
like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed.
Sören.
mg(1) calls 'exit(1)' on failure, but 'exit(GOOD)' on success. In my
opinion it would be more readable to just use 'exit(0)' for a normal
exit. (If there really is the need for a define, EXIT_SUCCESS would be a
better fit anyways, and EXIT_* should be applied consistently.)
Also, the MALLOCROUND()
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files
like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed.
How much of a catastrophy is
The libcrypto parts of the GOST ciphers have been commited, and barring
any objection from the usual LibreSSL suspects, will be enabled in the
not-so-far-away future.
The libssl parts are still under consideration. I have one concern and
one question about them:
- I understand from the ``FIXME
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files
like /etc/rc.d/rwhod
Le Dimanche 9 Novembre 2014 21:36 CET, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
a écrit:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that
On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail
2014-11-09 23:38 GMT+03:00 Miod Vallat m...@online.fr:
The libcrypto parts of the GOST ciphers have been commited, and barring
any objection from the usual LibreSSL suspects, will be enabled in the
not-so-far-away future.
The libssl parts are still under consideration. I have one concern and
Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
On 2014/11/09 21:41, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org wrote:
On 2014/11/09 22:08, Job Snijders wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod,
... and while I'm mopping this code, I believe the following change is
correct:
Index: gostr341001_pmeth.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libssl/src/crypto/gost/gostr341001_pmeth.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4
2014-11-10 1:04 GMT+03:00 Miod Vallat m...@online.fr:
... and while I'm mopping this code, I believe the following change is
correct:
Index: gostr341001_pmeth.c
===
RCS file:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:02:32PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
I was answering the specific point about the _exact_ same state as a
clean 5.6 installation there.
There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell
people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And
- I understand from the ``FIXME IANA'' comments that the various cipher
and extension IDs used by GOST are not official yet. Are these values
generally agreed upon by the websites which serve content using GOST
algorithms?
These values are provided as 'temporal private values till
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:02:32PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
I was answering the specific point about the _exact_ same state as a
clean 5.6 installation there.
There are some specific cases where it makes a lot of sense to tell
people to rm things (e.g. base program moved to ports). And
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that files
like /etc/rc.d/rwhod
The following diff attempts to polish the GOST code in libcrypto and add
many missing error checks (probably not exhaustive, but a good start).
A few KNF changes are included because I'm a tad too lazy to manually
split the diff at this point...
Important changes are mostly:
- VKO_compute_key()
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to
be 100% useful, or 100% complete?
Neither; 100% is unrealistic. Getting '90%' on either measure exceeds
my expectations.
The only expectation
Neither; 100% is unrealistic. Getting '90%' on either measure exceeds
my expectations.
The same percentage of flights would be acceptable?
I think that problem has been highlighted and we now belongs to all users to
check and submit oversights.
My 2 cents,
Regards,
--
Eric JACQUOT
Agreed that 100% is the goal - and I'm prepared to try and help
achieve this. I already think what is done is pretty damn
good - it far exceeds *my* expectations.
You've obviously never flown in Australia. 100% of flights *do
not* leave on time. There are errors and glitches - but fortunately
On 11/09/14 16:07, Job Snijders wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 01:36:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh,
rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the
Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to
Getting back to topic, is having an
old binary (rwhod) not deleted during an upgrade catastrophic?
I don't think so.
You would be mistaken. Wars have been fought over less -- by
the absolutists.
- I understand from the ``FIXME IANA'' comments that the various cipher
and extension IDs used by GOST are not official yet. Are these values
generally agreed upon by the websites which serve content using GOST
algorithms?
These values are provided as 'temporal private values till
Hello,
2014-11-10 2:12 GMT+03:00 Miod Vallat m...@online.fr:
The following diff attempts to polish the GOST code in libcrypto and add
many missing error checks (probably not exhaustive, but a good start).
I knew that I'm not perfect, but I didn't know the depth of my imperfectness...
I will
31 matches
Mail list logo
