On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 03:19:43PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> Ilya Voronin sent a diff to misc to limit MSR_INT_PEN_MSG use to
> < AMD family 17h prompted by a problem with an AWS t3a instance.
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=162120066715633=2
>
> Digging some more the 16h bkdgs have it
Ilya Voronin sent a diff to misc to limit MSR_INT_PEN_MSG use to
< AMD family 17h prompted by a problem with an AWS t3a instance.
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=162120066715633=2
Digging some more the 16h bkdgs have it as RAZ/non-functional as well.
Bits are documented in 15h.
BKDG for AMD
joshua stein writes:
> A bug was reported where a Kensington USB trackball didn't work
> properly:
>
> uhidev4 at uhub0 port 6 configuration 1 interface 0 "Kensington Expert
> Wireless TB" rev 2.00/1.02 addr 9
> uhidev4: iclass 3/1, 3 report ids
> ums3 at uhidev4 reportid 1
>
Hi,
Here is the updated diff, which removes table_proc and adds table_procexec as
the default backend when no backend name matches.
With this diff, I have the following configuration for smtpd:
# $OpenBSD: smtpd.conf,v 1.14 2019/11/26 20:14:38 gilles Exp $
# This is the smtpd server
Hi,
the diff below adds DT_FA_PROFILE and DT_FA_STATIC defines for arm64
to skip the probe context frames.
Here is how a typical arm64 stack trace looks with and without diff:
dt_pcb_ring_get+0x130
dt_prov_profile_enter+0x90
hardclock+0x1b0
agtimer_intr+0xa4
ampintc_irq_handler+0x1c0
> On 9 Jun 2021, at 17:13, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/9/21 10:34 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Jun 2021, at 15:47, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/9/21 5:19 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
Hi,
I wrote table_procexec (despite the copyright which I copy-pasted and
Josh Rickmar writes:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 06:01:59PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> > There were three promises which are not documented in pledge(2):
>> > disklabel, drm, and vmm. I've just left these at the end.
>> Sounds good.
>
> Are the undocumented promises intentional, or bugs in
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 06:01:59PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > There were three promises which are not documented in pledge(2):
> > disklabel, drm, and vmm. I've just left these at the end.
> Sounds good.
Are the undocumented promises intentional, or bugs in pledge(2)?
> Either way, a small
On 6/9/21 10:34 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
On 9 Jun 2021, at 15:47, Aisha Tammy wrote:
On 6/9/21 5:19 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
Hi,
I wrote table_procexec (despite the copyright which I copy-pasted and forgot to
replace author) so just providing a bit of insight:
Ah, I did not know
> On 9 Jun 2021, at 15:47, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>
> On 6/9/21 5:19 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote table_procexec (despite the copyright which I copy-pasted and forgot
>> to replace author) so just providing a bit of insight:
> Ah, I did not know that. I will fix the header in
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 10:42:06AM -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote:
> I was surprised to find that ps -O pledge did not list the pledge
> promise names in the same order as the pledge(2) manpage. Besides
> lacking consistency, this was also making it difficult to quickly find
> which promises are not
On 6/9/21 5:19 AM, Gilles CHEHADE wrote:
Hi,
I wrote table_procexec (despite the copyright which I copy-pasted and forgot to
replace author) so just providing a bit of insight:
Ah, I did not know that. I will fix the header in the next patch
table_procexec was written as a proof of concept
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:01:34AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Josh Rickmar wrote:
>
> > I figure that the manpage is probably the more consulted reference,
> > and the order that is preferred, so the patch below reorders the
> > promise names in pledge.h to match.
>
> The current array was
Josh Rickmar wrote:
> I figure that the manpage is probably the more consulted reference,
> and the order that is preferred, so the patch below reorders the
> promise names in pledge.h to match.
The current array was value-sorted (by the bit value) to allow binary
search. However no code is
I was surprised to find that ps -O pledge did not list the pledge
promise names in the same order as the pledge(2) manpage. Besides
lacking consistency, this was also making it difficult to quickly find
which promises are not granted to a process which requires most of
them (e.g. chrome).
I
Here is the diff: I apologize for not being able to send the file itself
diff --git a/games/arithmetic/arithmetic.c b/games/arithmetic/arithmetic.c
index 3b872ae1b03..d54894f9dbc 100644
--- a/games/arithmetic/arithmetic.c
+++ b/games/arithmetic/arithmetic.c
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ main(int argc, char
Hi,
I wrote table_procexec (despite the copyright which I copy-pasted and forgot to
replace author) so just providing a bit of insight:
table_procexec was written as a proof of concept for a new table protocol
inspired by the filter protocol to make it easier to write privsep table
backends
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 10:42:59PM +0200, Frederic Cambus wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 07:56:07PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I am satisfied.
> >
> > That is one architecture. I suggest checking which others can use
> > the same treatment.
>
> I was going to build i386 releases, but
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:41:59AM +0100, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following diff is a cleanup to remove two leftover checks, which
> were used when ni_unveil was used with UNVEIL_INSPECT:
>
> it was used by:
> - readlink(2) - removed 2019-08-31
>
> Make readlink require
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:32:55AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 01:15:05PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Paul de Weerd mentioned off-list that the initial expiration for an
> >
Hi.
Slightly updated diff, including sys/tree.h in smtpd.h.
Eric.
Index: aliases.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/smtpd/aliases.c,v
retrieving revision 1.78
diff -u -p -r1.78 aliases.c
--- aliases.c 28 Apr 2020 21:46:43 -
21 matches
Mail list logo
