Hello,
playing with option-252 I found it already has a name. Found that as
well: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126573542214773
Wrote a little script to find undocumented options, see end of message.
I moved some existing blocks when I found them to be in the wrong place.
Added a new
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:07:42PM +0100, Joerg Zinke wrote:
Am 11.12.2012 um 04:12 schrieb Lawrence Teo l...@openbsd.org:
There are a number of calloc() and strdup() calls in the
apply_defaults() and clone_lease() functions whose return values are not
checked. If they happen to return
I'm not opposed to introducing xstrdup() and xcalloc() to do the same
thing, though I think one advantage of the current method is that we
know exactly where the memory allocation fails since the error messages
are very specific, e.g. no memory for unpriv_ibuf vs. xcalloc: out of
memory
Since snmpd.conf stores passwords in plain text, should we prevent
changes to its contents in security(8) output?
-ME
Index: changelist
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/etc/changelist,v
retrieving revision 1.77
diff -u -p -r1.77 changelist
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 05:19:11PM -0500, Mike Erdely wrote:
Since snmpd.conf stores passwords in plain text, should we prevent
changes to its contents in security(8) output?
There are other files that do the same; e.g. ypldap.conf
I'm not saying your diff is wrong; just incomplete if you want
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 01:01:49PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
know exactly where the memory allocation fails since the error messages
I hate xstrdup() and xcalloc() for exactly that reason. You don't
know why it failed.
Actually, you can make them macros using all that underscore gcc
