After quite some debugging of why the heck my smtpd.conf was not
working after upgrading to 5.9 and substituting clamsmtp and dkim-
signer by smtpd(8) filters:
smtpd.conf(5) states:
filter name chain filter [, ...]
but should say:
filter name chain filter [...]
Index: smtpd.conf.5
in_pcblookup() is always called with *:0 for the remote side.
Remove the useless bits, shuffle the tests around and it's much
easier to audit.
Ok ?
Index: netinet/in_pcb.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/in_pcb.c,v
retrieving
Hi,
The following diff makes the effect of multiple threads calling
pledge(2) to be serializable.
It adds a loop (with tsleep(9)) at pledge(2) entrance if another thread
is already inside (due to sleep), changes return to goto statment, and
wakeup other threads at end.
The check for looping or
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:38:25PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 20:26:14 +0200
> > From: Patrick Wildt
> >
> > +void
> > +mainbus_iterate(struct device *self, struct device *match, int node)
> > +{
> > + for (;
> > + node != 0;
> > + node
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:42:58AM +0200, david+bsd@dahlberg.cologne wrote:
> After quite some debugging of why the heck my smtpd.conf was not
> working after upgrading to 5.9 and substituting clamsmtp and dkim-
> signer by smtpd(8) filters:
>
> smtpd.conf(5) states:
> ?? filter name chain filter
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:25:55AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> I really hope people won't deliberately write code that allows for
> simultanious execution of pledge(2) in multiple threads. In fact the
> only justification for calling pledge(2) in a multi-threaded process
> is if you wanted
Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> The -i flag doesn't appear to do what the man page suggests. Correcting
> the source is above my paygrade, but the man page isn't.
hmm? what do you think tcpdump does if -i isn't specified?
>
> Index: tcpdump.8
>
On 04/09/16 21:51, Ted Unangst wrote:
Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
The -i flag doesn't appear to do what the man page suggests. Correcting
the source is above my paygrade, but the man page isn't.
hmm? what do you think tcpdump does if -i isn't specified?
totally misread. thought it meant more
Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:30:39 +0200 Theo Buehler
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:45:58PM +, Héctor Luis Gimbatti wrote:
> > Is ok?
>
> no, the ?chmod and ?chown calls would require "fattr" as well, but since
> pledge restricts these calls substantially, pledging mv is currently
Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:15:51 +0200 Christian Weisgerber
> Let's illustrate the issue:
>
> $ sh -c 'echo "`echo \"hi\"`"'
> hi
> $ sh -o posix -c 'echo "`echo \"hi\"`"'
> "hi"
It is important this is consistently verified in evaluations, here
strings, here docs, filters,
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:47:14 +0200
> From: Sebastien Marie
>
> Hi,
>
> The following diff makes the effect of multiple threads calling
> pledge(2) to be serializable.
>
> It adds a loop (with tsleep(9)) at pledge(2) entrance if another thread
> is already inside (due
Is ok?
Index: mv.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/mv/mv.c,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -p -r1.43 mv.c
--- mv.c17 Nov 2015 18:34:00 - 1.43
+++ mv.c9 Apr 2016 15:44:59 -
@@ -72,6 +72,9 @@ main(int argc,
Index: arch.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/arch/arch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -p -r1.17 arch.c
--- arch.c 7 Dec 2015 18:11:37 - 1.17
+++ arch.c 9 Apr 2016 15:04:14 -
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
#include
The -i flag doesn't appear to do what the man page suggests. Correcting
the source is above my paygrade, but the man page isn't.
Index: tcpdump.8
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/tcpdump/tcpdump.8,v
retrieving revision 1.88
diff -u
Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following diff makes the effect of multiple threads calling
> pledge(2) to be serializable.
>
> It adds a loop (with tsleep(9)) at pledge(2) entrance if another thread
> is already inside (due to sleep), changes return to goto statment, and
> wakeup other
On 10:13:06, 7.04.16, Martin Natano wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:47:35AM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote:
> > relebad used to have more body:
> > relebad:
> > PRELE(t);
> > return (error);
> > But then PRELE(t); was removed. This diff gets rid of what remains of
> >
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:45:58PM +, Héctor Luis Gimbatti wrote:
> Is ok?
no, the ?chmod and ?chown calls would require "fattr" as well, but since
pledge restricts these calls substantially, pledging mv is currently
impossible.
try moving a file between two different partitions with your
17 matches
Mail list logo