Re: ICQ masq modules for 2.2?
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:56:16PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > Any help in obtaining the source for this module would be greatly > appreciated. >From the readme included in the tarball: Homepage primary:http://freeshell.org/~djsf/masq-icq/ alternate: http://djsf.narod.ru/masq-icq/ http://www.chat.ru/~djsf/masq-icq/ http://djsf.webjump.com/masq-icq/ http://members.xoom.com/djsf/masq-icq/ http://djsf.tripod.com/masq-icq/ At least some of these work for me... I really wonder why this guy didn't go to sourceforge or something, I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to properly something as useful as this. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: ICQ masq modules for 2.2?
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:56:16PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: Any help in obtaining the source for this module would be greatly appreciated. From the readme included in the tarball: Homepage primary:http://freeshell.org/~djsf/masq-icq/ alternate: http://djsf.narod.ru/masq-icq/ http://www.chat.ru/~djsf/masq-icq/ http://djsf.webjump.com/masq-icq/ http://members.xoom.com/djsf/masq-icq/ http://djsf.tripod.com/masq-icq/ At least some of these work for me... I really wonder why this guy didn't go to sourceforge or something, I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to properly something as useful as this. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: negative mod use count
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:08:11PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote: > > what does negative module use count mean? > A bugged module. Not at all. A non-zero usage count means the module can't be unloaded. Whatever the module does with the usage count apart from that is completely it's own choice. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: negative mod use count
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 03:08:11PM -0500, Brian Gerst wrote: what does negative module use count mean? A bugged module. Not at all. A non-zero usage count means the module can't be unloaded. Whatever the module does with the usage count apart from that is completely it's own choice. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 02:20:32PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility... > Eeek! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! > For ECN that would have worked, but that doesn't mean that something > couldn't have been implimented there that wouldn't have worked that way.. > I think that older Checkpoint firewalls (perhaps current?) zeroed out SACK > on 'hide nat'ed connections. This causes unreasonable stalls for users on > SACK enabled clients. Not cool. Point taken. So much for thinking simple... :-} -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 04:10:48AM +, David Wagner wrote: > Practice being really, really paranoid. Think: You're designing a > firewall; you've got some reserved bits, currently unused; any future code > that uses them could behave in completely arbitrary and insecure ways, > for all you know. Now recall that anything not known to be safe should > be denied (in a good firewall) -- see Cheswick and Bellovin for why. > When you take this point of view, it is completely understandable why > firewalls designed before ECN was introduced might block it. Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility... -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 04:10:48AM +, David Wagner wrote: Practice being really, really paranoid. Think: You're designing a firewall; you've got some reserved bits, currently unused; any future code that uses them could behave in completely arbitrary and insecure ways, for all you know. Now recall that anything not known to be safe should be denied (in a good firewall) -- see Cheswick and Bellovin for why. When you take this point of view, it is completely understandable why firewalls designed before ECN was introduced might block it. Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility... -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 02:20:32PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility... Eeek! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! For ECN that would have worked, but that doesn't mean that something couldn't have been implimented there that wouldn't have worked that way.. I think that older Checkpoint firewalls (perhaps current?) zeroed out SACK on 'hide nat'ed connections. This causes unreasonable stalls for users on SACK enabled clients. Not cool. Point taken. So much for thinking simple... :-} -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: tighter compression for x86 kernels
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:15:13AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Both source (GPLv2) and pre-compiled binary for x86 are available. >^ > That's not true. Read > http://wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/upx-license.html >From that page: UPX and the UCL library are free software; you can redistribute them and/or modify them under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Seems GPL2 to me. I haven't read all of the rest of the page, but that'd either be dual licensing stuff, or further restrictions, which would be in contradiction with the GPL. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: tighter compression for x86 kernels
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:15:13AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: Both source (GPLv2) and pre-compiled binary for x86 are available. ^ That's not true. Read http://wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/upx-license.html From that page: UPX and the UCL library are free software; you can redistribute them and/or modify them under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Seems GPL2 to me. I haven't read all of the rest of the page, but that'd either be dual licensing stuff, or further restrictions, which would be in contradiction with the GPL. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 0EDB 8787 fvw@[var.cx|dse.nl|stack.nl|chello.nl] ICQ#10074100 09B9 6EF5 6425 B855 Public key: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7179 3036 E136 B85D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote: > > Because you want to be able to `kill `? > > And if you are over-limits you can't? > Wrong. limit is a shell built in I assume you mean kill is a shell builtin. Depending on your shell. :-). It's still a real pain when you want to get the pid of the offending proces(ses). You could of course do something like for a in /proc/*; do echo -en "$a "; cat $a/cmdline; echo; done (it'll barf a lot, but give a reasonable picture)... Anyways, this is all not relevant, imho the whole point is moot. "I don't like root having rlimits." "So don't setrlimit root." No reason to ditch functionality. -- Frank v Waveren fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl|chello.nl|dse.nl] ICQ# 10074100 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] no RLIMIT_NPROC for root, please
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
Because you want to be able to `kill pid`?
And if you are over-limits you can't?
Wrong. limit is a shell built in
I assume you mean kill is a shell builtin. Depending on your shell. :-).
It's still a real pain when you want to get the pid of the offending
proces(ses). You could of course do something like
for a in /proc/*; do echo -en "$a "; cat $a/cmdline; echo; done (it'll
barf a lot, but give a reasonable picture)...
Anyways, this is all not relevant, imho the whole point is moot.
"I don't like root having rlimits."
"So don't setrlimit root."
No reason to ditch functionality.
--
Frank v Waveren
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl|chello.nl|dse.nl]
ICQ# 10074100
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Play Kernel Hangman!
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:31:44AM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote:
> After a stranger than usual late-night #kernelnewbies session on Thursday, I
> was inspired to come up with Kernel Hangman. This is the traditional game of
> hangman, except that the words you have to guess are kernel symbols.
Pah! I'll be impressed when you code it as a kernel-module, activating
with left-alt scrolllock or something (that still appears to be free).
:-p
--
Frank v Waveren
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl|chello.nl|dse.nl]
ICQ# 10074100
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
