On 2011-07-05, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Jaakko Heinonen wrote:
> > On 2011-07-05, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > > There's a regression error with calendar between FreeBSD-8.1 &
> > > 8.2-RELEASES
> > > Test data:
> > > -
> > > Tue+1 TESTX 1
> > > Tuesday+1 TESTX 2
> > > * Tuesday+1
As per request, forward this message to hackers@.
Original Message
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:54:33 +0800
From: Kevin Lo
To: develop...@freebsd.org
Subject: Add xdr_sizeof() support?
Hi,
We've had a function implementation for xdr_sizeof(3), but never
added in libc. NetBSD impo
[CCing Ben, Robert and Jonathan as it's very important for me to receive
their feedback about my thoughts]
Let me focus on those application ideas that you've mentioned. All the
following are my thoughts and this may be incorrect, in this case please
correct me.
> -any server software
Yes, server
On 8 Jul 2011, at 05:02, Matt Olander wrote:
> What about inetd? Is that possible or does each service it support
> need sandboxing, too? How about sendmail and bind?
I'm less concerned about the core connection juggling content of inetd than the
external services it launches -- however, inetd
On 08/07/2011 05:42, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
Hi hackers,
As a part of ongoing effort to enhance usage of Capsicum in FreeBSD base
system, I want to ask you, which applications in the base system should
receive sandboxing support.
How about a small description what sandboxing can bring to applicatio
On 8 July 2011 12:09, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
> modification of inetd itself is NOT sufficient and
> ineffective, capability support implies modifying code of daemons
Speaking as someone who isn't terribly familiar with inetd:
One could imagine inetd (or an inetd-like service) accepting
connections,
2011/7/7 Ed Schouten :
> Considering that the function is rather small anyway, why not compile it
> in unconditionally (though having a different name).
Hi Ed,
I made the adjustment you requested, plus a bit more polishing
(plugged a memleak, etc), and then I hit what seems like a memory
corrupti
On 07/08/2011 05:42 AM, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
> The question is: which applications should also be processed? I think
> that the most wanted candidates are SUID programs and/or popular network
> daemons.
> But looking at gzip example I also think about text-processing tools in
> general.
I think tcpd
FWIW;
I would think ftpd, which may require an update too,
would be a classical candidate. Perhaps also telnetd.
I recall sendmail calls bin/sh for some things and there
is an option for a restricted shell (rsh), so supporting
a shell would help sendmail too.
And then some stuff like ipfw is nev
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:42:12AM +0400, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
> The question is: which applications should also be processed? I think
> that the most wanted candidates are SUID programs and/or popular network
> daemons.
I propose 'man'; sneaky stuff can happen there
Dunno if that meshes with
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2011, at 9:48 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
Hi Warner,
On Sat, Apr 2, 20
On 8 Jul 2011, at 19:08, Brian Reichert wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:42:12AM +0400, Ilya Bakulin wrote:
>> The question is: which applications should also be processed? I think
>> that the most wanted candidates are SUID programs and/or popular network
>> daemons.
>
> I propose 'man'; sne
12 matches
Mail list logo
