wo changes? The directory stored into on the
> remote end can also be manipulated by another process on that machine, which
> could change the layout on the fly, including placing symbolic links. The
> unveil won't allow traversal outside the top-level directory, but placement
>
code simple. With unveil this isn't
> needed anymore.
Yes... but maybe no.
> --- usr.sbin/rmt/rmt.c
> +++ usr.sbin/rmt/rmt.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> char *devp;
> size_t dirlen;
>
> - if (pledge("stdio rpath wpath cpath
Hello,
I'm using rmt in combination with the -d option for remote dumps from
multiple machines. It works fine, but the limitation on forward slashes
fills my backup directory with hundreds of dumpfiles in only a month.
I'd like to keep this a bit more organized in subdirectories based
On February 17, 2017 11:53:44 PM GMT+01:00, Andrew Grillet
wrote:
>How do I actually use rmt?
>
>I want to backup a guest domain on a T2000 using a tape drive on the
>primary domain.
>Both domains run OpenBSD 6.0.
>
>The way I read the mt manual page, I should be able t
How do I actually use rmt?
I want to backup a guest domain on a T2000 using a tape drive on the
primary domain.
Both domains run OpenBSD 6.0.
The way I read the mt manual page, I should be able to do (from the guest,
as root)
> mt primary:/dev/rst0 status
and this should deliver the command
Hi there,
setbuf(3) etc "are obsoleted by setvbuf(3)" and "should be avoided".
The patch below replaces all occurrences in ping, ping6, lptest & rmt.
Cheers,
Frederic
Index: ping/ping.c
===
RCS file: /cv
of the '-r' flag is to stop
> a user from creating and/or writing to files. Obviously said user may
> not dictate the rmt arguments himself in that case.
>
If the user not dictate the rmt arguments, it would be ok. Else the user
could choose a file to overwrite, and he control
aid user may
not dictate the rmt arguments himself in that case.
>
>I think the code should be either:
> - enclosed in #ifdef DEBUG (prefered way)
> - not permitted if `rflag' or `wflag' are setted
I was tempted to rip that undocumented feature out entirely. Bu
On 09/11/15 19:33, Sebastien Marie wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:03:54PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
Is *anyone* but me using rdump(8) + rmt(8)?
I use dump(8) for doing remote backup, but I don't use rmt(8), due to
plaintext storage on remote side.
I don't understa
he policyi, but it should
be added later (when other userland tools gains it).
Else, just some comments inline.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:58:52AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> Index: rmt.c
> ===
> RCS file: /c
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:03:54PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Is *anyone* but me using rdump(8) + rmt(8)?
> >
> >I use dump(8) for doing remote backup, but I don't use rmt(8), due to
> >plaintext storage on remote side.
>
On September 11, 2015 6:27:26 AM GMT+02:00, Sebastien Marie
wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:58:52AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> I'm going wide with this diff I've been pushing for quite some time
>now.
>>
>> Is *anyone* but me using rdump(8) + rmt(8)?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:58:52AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> I'm going wide with this diff I've been pushing for quite some time now.
>
> Is *anyone* but me using rdump(8) + rmt(8)?
I use dump(8) for doing remote backup, but I don't use rmt(8), due to
plaintex
I'm going wide with this diff I've been pushing for quite some time now.
Is *anyone* but me using rdump(8) + rmt(8)?
*If you are currently using rdump/rrestore + rmt, I urge you to test
this diff to make sure it causes no regression. It shouldn't, but
you've been warned.
S
Hi,
Here's a diff that's been in my tree for quite some time, getting
polished back and forth. I think I'm quite satisfied as is now, and
would like to get opinions and/or OK's to commit it.
This diff gives rmt the following abilities:
- limit the (remote) file operations to
15 matches
Mail list logo
