---
src/lib/libcrypto/asn1/asn1t.h | 62 ++
1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/lib/libcrypto/asn1/asn1t.h b/src/lib/libcrypto/asn1/asn1t.h
index ba380bdf4..5e229e39d 100644
--- a/src/lib/libcrypto/asn1/asn1t.h
+++ b/src/lib/libcrypto/asn1/asn1t.h
@@
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:39:37AM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>
>
>
> Remi Locherer(remi.loche...@relo.ch) on 2019.05.15 23:15:03 +0200:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:10:37PM +0200, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:10:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:47:30PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Diff below introduces PF_OPT_IGNFAIL, which optionally relaxes err()/errx()
> to warn()/warnx(), where my following changes need that. I have not done
> 'global' replace of err()/errx() to pfctl_err()/pfctl_errx() to keep
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:08:14PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > -void
> > +int
> > pfctl_clear_rules(int dev, int opts, char *anchorname)
> > {
> > - struct pfr_buffer t;
> > + struct pfr_buffer t;
> > + int rv = 0;
> Not needed...
> >
> > memset(, 0,
On 16/05/19(Thu) 00:08, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> [...]
> > Regarding the choice of deriving quantum from the priority, are you sure
> > the priorities are correct? Should we keep priorities? Or if userland
> > needs priorities shouldn't we convert quantum into priority and not the
> > other way
On 2019/05/15 18:11, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> That looks good.
>
> Do others using sensorsd concur?
Yes.
> Anton Borowka wrote:
>
> > sensorsd(8) currently only unveils /etc/sensorsd.conf for reading, but
> > the config file can be changed with the -f option (which is currently
> > not
Remi Locherer(remi.loche...@relo.ch) on 2019.05.15 23:15:03 +0200:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:10:37PM +0200, Remi Locherer wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:10:31AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > On 2019/04/29 11:58, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> > > > David Gwynne(da...@gwynne.id.au)
sorry, im slowly catching up on my mail backlog
diff committed, thanks
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:27:56PM +0300, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:
> diff --git a/opensmtpd/list.html b/opensmtpd/list.html
> index cdb66803b..97e55d3df 100644
> --- a/opensmtpd/list.html
> +++ b/opensmtpd/list.html
> @@ -38,7
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:15:03PM +0200, Remi Locherer wrote:
> Any opinions or comments on this? I think this would be a valuable addition
> to ospfd.
>
I can't see any harm in it.
OK denis@
> >
> > Below diff changes ospfctl to accept the address and number format for
> > "ospfct show
Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:54 PM Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> Martijn van Duren wrote:
>
> > I don't see much point in the check.
> >
> > If we don't have write permissions open(2) will fail.
> > If we open it based on S_IWOTH permissions than checking for S_IWGRP
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:05:32AM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This effort is heavily based on top of Gregor's and Michal's diffs. Tried to
> incorporate feedback given by different people to them in 2011/2016. Split
> the new code in a ifdef, so people can do a straight comparison,
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:54 PM Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Martijn van Duren wrote:
>
> > I don't see much point in the check.
> >
> > If we don't have write permissions open(2) will fail.
> > If we open it based on S_IWOTH permissions than checking for S_IWGRP
> > without considering who is in
On 5/16/19 7:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Martijn van Duren wrote:
>
>> I don't see much point in the check.
>>
>> If we don't have write permissions open(2) will fail.
>> If we open it based on S_IWOTH permissions than checking for S_IWGRP
>> without considering who is in that group seems
13 matches
Mail list logo
