On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:54:56PM +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> This adds client certificate authentication to ypldap(8). libtls makes the
> actual certificate part of this straightforward (I would still like it
> reviewed, though), but there are some LDAP complications.
>
> Depending on your
On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 02:10:22AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> It does not have the prettiest signature, but nicely folds identical
> copies into MI softraid.c, which then allows us to
> - avoid further diverging MD code
> - implement the keydisk fix on tech@ once instead of thrice
> - reuse
just a small scratch to itch; i'd prefer if i could split the
alternative names in multiple lines without using \
so, now one should be able to write
domain example.com {
alternative names {
some-subdomain.example.com
another-subdomain.example.com
Makes sense to me, OK florian
Please wait a day or two in case there are objections.
On 2022-10-05 09:28 +02, Omar Polo wrote:
> just a small scratch to itch; i'd prefer if i could split the
> alternative names in multiple lines without using \
>
> so, now one should be able to write
>
> domain
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:15:51AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> A note on why this chance is coming.
>
> malloc.c (as it is today), does mprotects back and forth between RW and
> R, to protect an internal object. This object is in bss, it is not
> allocated with mmap. With the upcoming
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:47:19PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:15:51AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > A note on why this chance is coming.
> >
> > malloc.c (as it is today), does mprotects back and forth between RW and
> > R, to protect an internal object. This object
Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:15:51AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > A note on why this chance is coming.
> >
> > malloc.c (as it is today), does mprotects back and forth between RW and
> > R, to protect an internal object. This object is in bss, it is not
> > allocated with
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 05:03:16PM -0400, Dave Voutila wrote:
> Matthew Martin recently presented a patch on tech@ [1] fixing some missed
> scaling from when I converted vmd(8) to use bytes instead of megabytes
> everywhere. I finally found time to wade through the code it touches and
> am
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 05:03:16PM -0400, Dave Voutila wrote:
> Matthew Martin recently presented a patch on tech@ [1] fixing some missed
> scaling from when I converted vmd(8) to use bytes instead of megabytes
> everywhere. I finally found time to wade through the code it touches and
> am
Matthew Martin recently presented a patch on tech@ [1] fixing some missed
scaling from when I converted vmd(8) to use bytes instead of megabytes
everywhere. I finally found time to wade through the code it touches and
am proposing we simply "tedu" the incomplete feature.
Does anyone use this?
On October 5, 2022 12:57:44 AM GMT+02:00, Klemens Nanni
wrote:
>There is no problem to fix, but every boot I read "/clearing /tmp" and
>know it is a useless step since my /tmp live on volatile RAM anyway.
>
>Other steps in rc(8) also check and print/log conditionally, so this
>can do as well,
On October 4, 2022 10:11:46 PM GMT+02:00, Klemens Nanni
wrote:
>This function's style is a bit off: it wraps the body in a subshell to
>discard all stdout/err at once, but a still uses return inside it.
>
>1. A command list (using {}) would be enough here as it groups like a
> subshell but
12 matches
Mail list logo
