uid_t fix for sa(8)

deraadt@ pointed out that NetBSD committed a uid_t fix for their sa(8), and as far as I can tell, it's needed in our tree too. I'd really appreciate if someone who actually uses sa(8) could test that this diff still works for them and save me the trouble of learning how to use it. :) The

Re: AES-GCM Part 2: PFKEY/ESP

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:57 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 20:19 +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: ESP part gets a nice hack (esp_gcm_init_auth) that fakes an authentication part of GCM from the encryption one. Frankly, I'd rather put this into the userland, but it won't

AES-GCM Part 3: isakmpd

isakmpd part. both initiator and responder modes work fine. tested against strongswan/pluto and itself. note that it defaults to AESGCM-256 (i did it this way because linux picks largest key). Index: conf.c === RCS file:

AES-GCM Part 4: ipsecctl

ipsecctl part. Index: ike.c === RCS file: /home/cvs/src/sbin/ipsecctl/ike.c,v retrieving revision 1.67 diff -u -p -r1.67 ike.c --- ike.c 4 Oct 2009 11:39:32 - 1.67 +++ ike.c 30 Aug 2010 17:54:19 - @@ -161,6

Looking for testers for a simple X test

The Xorg xserver runs a scary amount of code in a signal handler. It's supposed to make your mouse cursor move more smoothly, but I can't spot the difference when I disable that feature. Instead, this feature breaks certain multi-card setups and god knows what. So we're considering switching

Re: Backout mclgeti for vr(4).

Evening, I have two machines with vr(4) interfaces running 4.7, and I can't seem to find any problem running ping -f against them. vr0 at pci0 dev 12 function 0 VIA VT6105 RhineIII rev 0x86: apic 2 int 19 (irq 10), address 00:19:5b:82:a1:e0 vr0 at pci0 dev 16 function 0 VIA Rhine/RhineII rev

Re: Backout mclgeti for vr(4).

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 06:46:53PM -0400, Brynet wrote: Evening, I have two machines with vr(4) interfaces running 4.7, and I can't seem to find any problem running ping -f against them. vr0 at pci0 dev 12 function 0 VIA VT6105 RhineIII rev 0x86: apic 2 int 19 (irq 10), address

Re: Looking for testers for a simple X test

Mark Kettenis wrote: The Xorg xserver runs a scary amount of code in a signal handler. It's supposed to make your mouse cursor move more smoothly, but I can't spot the difference when I disable that feature. Instead, this feature breaks certain multi-card setups and god knows what. So we're

Re: Looking for testers for a simple X test

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:31:25PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: The Xorg xserver runs a scary amount of code in a signal handler. It's supposed to make your mouse cursor move more smoothly, but I can't spot the difference when I disable that feature. Instead, this feature breaks certain

Re: Looking for testers for a simple X test

How can you tell whether this option is turned on by default or not? xorg.conf(5) indicates that the default is platform dependent and that this option in general should only be used as a work-around to a bug until fixed. The X documentation is full of lies.