Hello,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> When using anchors, they ought to have a non-empty name or none at all.
>
> By accident, I discovered the following:
>
> $ printf 'anchor ""\n' | pfctl -vnf-
> pass all no state
>
> No errors and it parses in a
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:20:03PM +0100, Daniel Gracia wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> httpdd FastCGI interface can connect seamlessly to a local TCP port,
> but this is not documented on the man page.
Thanks for pointing this out. I worked with jmc on rewording the
fastcgi socket description a bit.
>
Ted Unangst wrote on Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:37:52AM -0500:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
>> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
>> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs.
> Just
Hi,
I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS
fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but only
Linux and FreeBSD needed new ones. I have been doing this because it is
related with my work during the last Google Summer of Code. In addition,
Michal Zalewsk
Hi Pablo,
On 2/8/19 5:07 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS
>> fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but on
Hi,
The following diff adds the description of the second bit of the struct
pkthdr_pf field flags.
bye,
Jan
Index: sys/sys/mbuf.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/sys/mbuf.h,v
retrieving revision 1.241
diff -u -p -r1.241 mbuf.h
--- sys/sy
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
[...]
> On 2/8/19 5:07 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
[...]
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
[...]
> >> +S20:64:1:60:M*,S,T,N,W7: Linux:3.11-3.19::Linux 3.11 - 3.19
> >> +S20:64
Hi Fernando,
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS
> fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but only
> Linux and FreeBSD needed new ones. I have been doing this b
I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
ok?
--- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~ Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008
+++ scan_ffs.8 Fri Feb 8 21:31:10 2019
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when they happen.
.Sh SEE ALSO
.Xr disklabel 8
.Sh BUGS
-It
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
>
> I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
> scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
>
> ok?
>
hi.
i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems relevant. i would be
tempted to be much more upfront
Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
> > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
> >
> > ok?
> >
>
> hi.
>
> i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems rele
On Fri, Feb 08 2019, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> Jason McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
>> > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
>> >
>> > ok?
>> >
>>
>> h
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:11:31PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08 2019, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> > Jason McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance t
The am335x_evm U-Boot target outputs a FIT image including device trees
for multiple am335x boards including the BeagleBone Black.
The am335x_boneblack target has been removed in the U-Boot repository
and will not be in the next major release.
This requires u-boot-arm >= 2019.01p2
Index: miniroo
On 02/08/19 15:35, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
ok?
--- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~ Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008
+++ scan_ffs.8 Fri Feb 8 21:31:10 2019
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when they
15 matches
Mail list logo