Re: pfctl: anchor names must not be empty, unify sanity checks

2019-02-08 Thread Alexandr Nedvedicky
Hello, On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > When using anchors, they ought to have a non-empty name or none at all. > > By accident, I discovered the following: > > $ printf 'anchor ""\n' | pfctl -vnf- > pass all no state > > No errors and it parses in

Re: httpd.conf(5) man page

2019-02-08 Thread Florian Obser
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:20:03PM +0100, Daniel Gracia wrote: > Hi there! > > httpdd FastCGI interface can connect seamlessly to a local TCP port, > but this is not documented on the man page. Thanks for pointing this out. I worked with jmc on rewording the fastcgi socket description a bit. >

Update pf.os with newer OS fingerprints

2019-02-08 Thread Fernando Fernandez Mancera
Hi, I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but only Linux and FreeBSD needed new ones. I have been doing this because it is related with my work during the last Google Summer of Code. In addition, Michal

Re: install(1) could fail due to race

2019-02-08 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Ted Unangst wrote on Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:37:52AM -0500: > Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the >> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below), >> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs. > Just

diff: add missing bit description for pkthdr_pf.flags

2019-02-08 Thread Jan Klemkow
Hi, The following diff adds the description of the second bit of the struct pkthdr_pf field flags. bye, Jan Index: sys/sys/mbuf.h === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/sys/mbuf.h,v retrieving revision 1.241 diff -u -p -r1.241 mbuf.h ---

Re: Update pf.os with newer OS fingerprints

2019-02-08 Thread Pablo Neira Ayuso
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: [...] > On 2/8/19 5:07 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: [...] > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: [...] > >> +S20:64:1:60:M*,S,T,N,W7: Linux:3.11-3.19::Linux 3.11 - 3.19 > >>

Re: Update pf.os with newer OS fingerprints

2019-02-08 Thread Pablo Neira Ayuso
Hi Fernando, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > Hi, > > I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS > fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but only > Linux and FreeBSD needed new ones. I have been doing this

Re: Update pf.os with newer OS fingerprints

2019-02-08 Thread Fernando Fernandez Mancera
Hi Pablo, On 2/8/19 5:07 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Hi Fernando, > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:06:00PM +0100, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have been updating the pf.os signatures with more recent OS >> fingerprints. I have checked out new Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD but

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. > > ok? > hi. i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems relevant. i would be tempted to be much more

scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. ok? --- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~ Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008 +++ scan_ffs.8 Fri Feb 8 21:31:10 2019 @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when they happen. .Sh SEE ALSO .Xr disklabel 8 .Sh BUGS -It

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:11:31PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08 2019, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > > Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread Theo de Raadt
Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > > > > > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why > > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. > > > > ok? > > > > hi. > > i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
On Fri, Feb 08 2019, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > Jason McIntyre wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: >> > >> > >> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why >> > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. >> > >> > ok? >> > >> >>

switch to am335x_evm U-Boot target

2019-02-08 Thread Jonathan Gray
The am335x_evm U-Boot target outputs a FIT image including device trees for multiple am335x boards including the BeagleBone Black. The am335x_boneblack target has been removed in the U-Boot repository and will not be in the next major release. This requires u-boot-arm >= 2019.01p2 Index:

Re: scan_ffs(8) and FFS2 filesystems

2019-02-08 Thread gwes
On 02/08/19 15:35, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case. ok? --- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~ Mon Mar 24 00:28:46 2008 +++ scan_ffs.8 Fri Feb 8 21:31:10 2019 @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ you out of a jam when