On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 07:40:01AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:24:29PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:24:45PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > >
> > > Feedback? OK?
> > >
> >
> > ok, in general i'm fine with this. i do have some concerns t
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:24:29PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:24:45PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> >
> > Feedback? OK?
> >
>
> ok, in general i'm fine with this. i do have some concerns though:
New diff with all points addressed, see inline for explanations.
Jus
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:27:14PM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Heyya tech@,
>
> Please keep me on cc, I'm not subscribed
>
> I've been working on porting some of my linux specific software to
> work on OpenBSD. While working with some routing-specific code,
> I needed to pull up show.c to
12/21/22 00:53, Theo de Raadt пишет:
> This went from solving one thing, which was largely agreed.
>
> Now it is trying to introduce other changes as well. Almost always that
> process stinks, unless it goes over the top at saying it is trying to solve
> other problems when the diff is re-introdu
I received an issue that ixv(4) doesn't detect linkdowns in personal email.
When linkdown happens, the PF (Primary Function) driver interrupts all VFs
(Virtual Function) via `mailbox`. But ixv(4) doesn't receive the interrupt.
According to NetBSD, this problem has been fixed by following commits.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:00:40PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 07:35:53PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 09:51:51AM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:28:05AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > On 2022/1
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:02:23AM -0500, Geoff Steckel wrote:
>
> On 12/19/22 21:07, Kevin Lo wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 03:50:45PM -0500, Geoff Steckel wrote:
> > > Thanks for all the suggestions:
> > >
> > > sysctl kern.pool_debug=1 = no change
> > > known working board in same slot =
Heyya tech@,
Please keep me on cc, I'm not subscribed
I've been working on porting some of my linux specific software to
work on OpenBSD. While working with some routing-specific code,
I needed to pull up show.c to map the letters in `route show` to the
RTF_ values.
I figured while I was in ther
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
> a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
>
> /usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument 'sns' of type 'struct pf_src_n
> ode *[4]' with mismatch
Hi,
clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
/usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument 'sns' of type 'struct
pf_src_node *[4]' with mismatched bound [-Werror,-Warray-parameter]
struct pf_rule_action
While working back and forth with dlg@ on his idea of adding in async
task queues to vmd devices, he started to introduce a cleaner way to
handle virtqueues. In short, we can just track the host virtual address
and read/write to that location.
This has the benefit of cleaning up a good chunk of co
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 06:40:45PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>
> What confuses me is that atomicio() is not used in the main readwrite()
> loop. There nc polls on both fds and then read/write depending on return
> values. atomicio() is only used by atelnet() and socks_connect() which do
> not d
Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:53:18PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > This went from solving one thing, which was largely agreed.
> >
> > Now it is trying to introduce other changes as well. Almost always that
> > process stinks, unless it goes over the top at saying it is
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:53:18PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> This went from solving one thing, which was largely agreed.
>
> Now it is trying to introduce other changes as well. Almost always that
> process stinks, unless it goes over the top at saying it is trying to solve
> other problems w
12/21/22 00:24, Jason McIntyre пишет:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:24:45PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> expr(1) is a good example. i think it doesn;t matter that expr can take
> one arg or many.
But it does, which is why the expr(1) could be considered a bug fix:
$ expr '1 + 2'
1
This went from solving one thing, which was largely agreed.
Now it is trying to introduce other changes as well. Almost always that
process stinks, unless it goes over the top at saying it is trying to solve
other problems when the diff is re-introduced. It is sneaky, and usually
seems to be a w
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:24:45PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
> Feedback? OK?
>
ok, in general i'm fine with this. i do have some concerns though:
>
> Index: share/man/man4/ddb.4
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man4/ddb.4,
12/20/22 20:16, Ingo Schwarze пишет:
> Hi Klemens,
>
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:35:19AM +:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:36:39AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
>>> Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
>>> between
>>> $ program 'args
A few weeks ago a conversation about retguard (a diff is probably
coming) caused me re-consider & re-read the BROP paper
https://www.scs.stanford.edu/brop/bittau-brop.pdf
After lots of details, page 8 has a table summarizing the attack process.
Step 5 contains the text "The attacker can
Hi Josiah,
committed, thanks!
Ingo
Josiah Frentsos wrote on Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:49:06PM -0500:
> Index: getdelim.3
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/stdio/getdelim.3,v
> retrieving revision 1.6
> diff -u -p -r1.6 getdelim.3
Index: getdelim.3
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/stdio/getdelim.3,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 getdelim.3
--- getdelim.3 17 Oct 2017 22:47:58 - 1.6
+++ getdelim.3 20 Dec 2022 17:45:54 -
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@ T
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:35:19 +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
>
> > also some things will use argument vs arg. for example ssh(1). do you
> > propose to change those?
>
> I have no strong opinion on "arg" vs. "argument". It probably makes
> sense to standardize on whichever
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:35:19 +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> also some things will use argument vs arg. for example ssh(1). do you
> propose to change those?
I have no strong opinion on "arg" vs. "argument". It probably makes
sense to standardize on whichever is most prevalent in our
documentatio
Hi Klemens,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:35:19AM +:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:36:39AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
>> between
>> $ program 'args in one shell word'
>> and
>> $ program one
12/20/22 19:26, Todd C. Miller пишет:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:36:39 +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
>> Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
>> between
>> $ program 'args in one shell word'
>> and
>> $ program one arg per shell word
>>
>> It's a minor thin
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:36:39 +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
> between
> $ program 'args in one shell word'
> and
> $ program one arg per shell word
>
> It's a minor thing, imho, but perhaps we can decide for one and
On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 11:34 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:28 +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> > Hi Martijn,
> >
> > On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 11:10 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:21 +0100, Matthias Pitzl wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Since
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:36:39AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
> between
> $ program 'args in one shell word'
> and
> $ program one arg per shell word
>
> It's a minor thing, imho, but perhaps we can decide for on
On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:28 +, Gerhard Roth wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
> On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 11:10 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:21 +0100, Matthias Pitzl wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Since the release of OpenBSD 7.2, snmp mibtree is broken:
> > > > root@host:~# sn
Hi Martijn,
On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 11:10 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:21 +0100, Matthias Pitzl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the release of OpenBSD 7.2, snmp mibtree is broken:
> > > root@host:~# snmp mibtree
> > > snmp: No securityName specified
> >
> > Greetings,
>
On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 10:21 +0100, Matthias Pitzl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the release of OpenBSD 7.2, snmp mibtree is broken:
> > root@host:~# snmp mibtree
> > snmp: No securityName specified
>
> Greetings,
> Matthias
Apparently no one has used this one in a long time (including me).
This got bro
Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish
between
$ program 'args in one shell word'
and
$ program one arg per shell word
It's a minor thing, imho, but perhaps we can decide for one and stick to
it throughout the tree?
Triple dots also make it immediat
Yes, my previous commit was wrong. Calling vm_rpc_close() was missing.
Thank you for finding.
ok yasuoka
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 19:26:05 +0900 (JST)
Masato Asou wrote:
> From: Masato Asou
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:26:22 +0900 (JST)
>
> Delete #define VMT_DEBUG
> ok?
> --
> ASOU Masato
>
>> co
33 matches
Mail list logo
