Re: Fix manual description in SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.3

Hello Kinichiro-san, Kinichiro Inoguchi wrote on Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 05:09:52PM +0900: > I think both SSL_CTX_get_extra_chain_certs and > SSL_CTX_get_extra_chain_certs_only should be described here. I think the text describing what to do with internal pointers returned from LibreSSL functions

Fix manual description in SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.3

I think both SSL_CTX_get_extra_chain_certs and SSL_CTX_get_extra_chain_certs_only should be described here. ok? Index: SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.3 === RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libssl/man/SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.3,v retrieving

Re: ldom.conf.5: Use stride in EXAMPLES, elaborate on hardware threads

On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 09:27:30PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > CPU strides provide means to effectively bind guests to certain specific > phsyical cores by overallocating virtual CPUs (hardware threads) such > that the sum of virtual CPUs and strides yields an integer multiple of > the CPU

Re: ldom.conf.5: Use stride in EXAMPLES, elaborate on hardware threads

> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:40:23 +0100 > From: Klemens Nanni > > On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 09:27:30PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > > CPU strides provide means to effectively bind guests to certain specific > > phsyical cores by overallocating virtual CPUs (hardware threads) such > > that the sum

Re: sosleep(), SO_RCVTIMEO and TIMEVAL_TO_NSEC()

On 09/01/20(Thu) 16:10, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO allow userland to specify a timeout value > via a 'struct timeval'. Internally the kernel keeps this time > representation in ticks. Diff below changes that to nanoseconds which > allows us to use tsleep_nsec(9) in

TIMESPEC_TO_NSEC(): futex(2), __thrsigdivert(2) & __thrsleep(2)

The consensus is now to switch syscall doing sleeps to use tsleep_nsec(9). Our direct goal is to stop expressing time as ticks, more might come later. Diff below introduces the previously discussed TIMESPEC_TO_NSEC(9) macro and makes use of it in 3 syscalls. Comments? Oks? Index:

Re: MAKE: redux patch

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 12:34:23 +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > Oh, the test is wrong, and it's now enough to have make complain about it. > > Before the patch, errors in .END and .BEGIN were not properly looked at. > > See, that -f ... && will be *false* if the file doesn't exist. > The way to this

uthum(4) & tsleep

Now that tsleep_nsec(9) has the same behavior as tsleep(9) the conversion be low should be safe. Ok? Index: uthum.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/usb/uthum.c,v retrieving revision 1.32 diff -u -p -r1.32 uthum.c --- uthum.c 9

Re: uthum(4) & tsleep

> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:09:23 +0100 > From: Martin Pieuchot > > Now that tsleep_nsec(9) has the same behavior as tsleep(9) the > conversion be low should be safe. > > Ok? ok kettenis@ > Index: uthum.c > === > RCS file:

Re: ospf(6)d.conf: define interface parameters per area or globally

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:14:48AM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > I have a diff to allow parameters after interface or area definition. > > > Not sure if we want to do that though. > > > > I would appreciate that! ;-) > > > >

Re: ldom.conf.5: Add BUGS section for hypervisor memory

On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 11:54:21PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > The hypervisor requires memory and allocates it transparently, e.g. on > my T4-2 with 128G in factory-default configuration without guests, the > primary domain boots into OBP with 127.5G while the PRI presents 127.62M > of physical

Re: IPL of timeout_set_proc(9)

On 11/01/20(Sat) 16:12, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > Before converting network timeouts to run in a thread context they were > > executed in a soft-interrupt handler. This design implied that timeouts > > were serialized. > > Yep. >

Re: Fix manual description in SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.3

Hello Ingo-san, Thanks for your answer. Today, I had read through this manual, and I just thought that the newly added function was missed in the description section at last update. But now I had understood the status of manual maintenance by your explanation. I just read only one manual page and

Re: ospf(6)d.conf: define interface parameters per area or globally

Theo de Raadt(dera...@openbsd.org) on 2020.01.12 12:03:40 -0700: > Remi Locherer wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote:

Re: TIMESPEC_TO_NSEC(): futex(2), __thrsigdivert(2) & __thrsleep(2)

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 4:44 AM Martin Pieuchot wrote: > The consensus is now to switch syscall doing sleeps to use tsleep_nsec(9). > Our direct goal is to stop expressing time as ticks, more might come > later. > The API futex(2) has a bug: it doesn't take a clockid_t and doesn't have a way to

Re: apply changes immediately to join'd essids

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Peter Hessler wrote: > When we change attributes for a join essid, we should apply the change > immediately instead of waiting to (randomly) switch away and switch > back. > > Found by martijn@ > > OK? > > Index: net80211/ieee80211_ioctl.c >

Re: IPL of timeout_set_proc(9)

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 12:52:53PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 11/01/20(Sat) 16:12, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 05:41:00PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > Before converting network timeouts to run in a thread context they were > > > executed in a soft-interrupt

Re: sosleep(), SO_RCVTIMEO and TIMEVAL_TO_NSEC()

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:33:43PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 09/01/20(Thu) 16:10, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO allow userland to specify a timeout value > > via a 'struct timeval'. Internally the kernel keeps this time > > representation in ticks. Diff below

apply changes immediately to join'd essids

When we change attributes for a join essid, we should apply the change immediately instead of waiting to (randomly) switch away and switch back. Found by martijn@ OK? Index: net80211/ieee80211_ioctl.c === RCS file:

iked(8): better cryptographic defaults

Hi, I was looking at iked's cryptographic defaults and noticed that there's some weak/deprecated primitives while we do not propose some of the newer (more secure/faster) algorithms. 3DES is considered weak since https://sweet32.info/ and was removed from OpenSSL in 2016. Logjam and

Re: ospf(6)d.conf: define interface parameters per area or globally

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:14:48AM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > > > I have a diff to allow

Re: ospf(6)d.conf: define interface parameters per area or globally

Remi Locherer wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:14:48AM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > >

Re: ospf(6)d.conf: define interface parameters per area or globally

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:13:45PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:14:48AM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > > I have a diff to allow parameters after interface or area definition. > > > > Not sure if we