On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 8:42 PM Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Heylas,
>
> So, I ran 6.8 syspatch (patches 002 and 003 together) for three systems
> today (yesterday by the time anyone sees this, most likely). Two came
> right back up as expected. The third didn't, but as it's local, I could
>
> .
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:15:00PM +, Peter M??ller wrote:
> Hello Lucas,
>
> as far as I understood, setting MTU on encN interfaces is not supported
> since it is not mentioned by enc(4) and setting it manually fails:
>
> > machine# ifconfig enc0 mtu 1500
> > ifconfig: SIOCSIFMTU:
Heylas,
So, I ran 6.8 syspatch (patches 002 and 003 together) for three systems
today (yesterday by the time anyone sees this, most likely). Two came
right back up as expected. The third didn't, but as it's local, I could
go retry at the console (all three were actually patched and rebooted
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:36:38 +0100
Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Howdy misc@,
>
> I have a fairly complicated setup with lots of interfaces, a couple of
> rdomains etc.
>
> I'd like wireguard to listen only on an IP address, not all. But if my
> understanding of ifconfig(8) is correct, this doesn't
js-openbsd-m...@webkeks.org wrote:
> I just saw
> https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/6.8/common/002_icmp6.patch.sig,
> however, it's unclear from the description and the context around the
> patch if this is a read after free or write after free (or both).
I think it is fair you can
Hi!
I just saw
https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/6.8/common/002_icmp6.patch.sig,
however, it's unclear from the description and the context around the patch if
this is a read after free or write after free (or both).
In the case of a write after free, would this change "Only two
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 6:09 PM, Pierre Emeriaud
> wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 21:03, Stuart Henderson a
> écrit :
>> Which DNS server do you have bound on 53?
>
> unwind
>
>
>>> Is there a reason why wg needs such a large bind?
>> Unless/until it gets an option to bind to a
Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Totally agreed. This is because of my stupid idea to share port 53 for
> this use. Maybe my understanding of sockets was wrong, but I thought
> that applications could use the bind port _if and only_ they weren't
> trying to bind the same IP+port, hence my question about
On 2020/10/29 23:08, Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 21:03, Stuart Henderson a écrit
> :
> >
> > Which DNS server do you have bound on 53?
>
> unwind
>
>
> > > Is there a reason why wg needs such a large bind?
> >
> > Unless/until it gets an option to bind to a specific IP
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 21:17, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
>
> Or, don't try to overlay stuff onto a single port. Look, we can tell
> what is going on here, you want to tunnel over the least-filtered port
> on the internet, but if you do that trying to use that port for another
> thing is quite a
Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 18:00, Brian Brombacher a écrit
> :
> >
> >
> > Then there’s a misconfiguration, wg driver bug, or the driver documentation
> > is wrong in ifconfig about wgrtable.
> >
> > Routing domains are where you can specify multiple conflicting port
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 21:03, Stuart Henderson a écrit :
>
> Which DNS server do you have bound on 53?
unwind
> > Is there a reason why wg needs such a large bind?
>
> Unless/until it gets an option to bind to a specific IP that's all it
> can sanely do. It would definitely be useful IMO.
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 18:00, Brian Brombacher a écrit :
>
>
> Then there’s a misconfiguration, wg driver bug, or the driver documentation
> is wrong in ifconfig about wgrtable.
>
> Routing domains are where you can specify multiple conflicting port binds and
> be fine, INADDR_ANY included.
On
On 2020-10-29, Tom Smyth wrote:
> Hi Anthony did you manage to try to move the chrome profile directory
> so that you start with a fresh profile like As
It doesn't get that far, it doesn't even start executing the process.
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020-10-29, Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> > Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 01:20, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
> >>
> >> I believe you are running into the restriction that we don't allow an
> >> INADDR_ANY:port binding to be done after a ipaddr:port binding has been
> >> done. It
On 2020-10-29, Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 01:20, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
>>
>> I believe you are running into the restriction that we don't allow an
>> INADDR_ANY:port binding to be done after a ipaddr:port binding has been
>> done. It must be done beforehands.
>
> Sorry
There is any chance that the OpenBSD template for Qubes OS will be made?
It would be a big help for OpenBSD followers instead NetBSD.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:08:20AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Aleksander De wrote:
>
> > Are there any downsides or potential issues which may happen when
> > extending boundaries for OpenBSD partition on >2TB disk while using
> > MBR for booting it at the same time? I need MBR otherwise the
I get no output with monitor:
prometheus# time switchctl monitor
^C1m27.15s real 0m00.00s user 0m00.00s system
I also tried plugging in a different device into em1 while the
monitor was running but I didn't get any output.
Here is the output of switchd as well, the output continues
what output does
switchctl monitor
give you
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:16, John McGuigan wrote:
>
> prometheus$ ifconfig em0
> em0: flags=808843 \
> mtu 1500
> lladdr 00:0d:b9:be:ef:94
> index 1 priority 0 llprio 3
> groups: egress
> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT
prometheus$ ifconfig em0
em0: flags=808843 \
mtu 1500
lladdr 00:0d:b9:be:ef:94
index 1 priority 0 llprio 3
groups: egress
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex,rxpause,txpause)
status: active
inet 192.168.1.80 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
prometheus$ ifconfig
what is your ifconfig em0
ifconfig em1
?
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:07, John McGuigan wrote:
>
> Howdy misc,
>
> I have an APU2 with the following configuration under 6.8:
>
> em0 = WAN
> em1 = bridge0 LAN
> em2 = bridge0 LAN
> vether = 10.0.0.1
>
> prometheus$ cat /etc/hostname.bridge0
> add
Aleksander De wrote:
> Are there any downsides or potential issues which may happen when
> extending boundaries for OpenBSD partition on >2TB disk while using
> MBR for booting it at the same time? I need MBR otherwise the machine
> will not boot. BIOS/RAID controller does not support UEFI.
The
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 11:21 AM, Pierre Emeriaud
> wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 00:09, Brian Brombacher a
> écrit :
>>
>> Scratch that, use the ifconfig wgrtable option to specify separate routing
>> domains for the port 53. This lets you initiate many. You still need to
>> deal
Hi Anthony did you manage to try to move the chrome profile directory
so that you start with a fresh profile like As
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 11:26, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2020-10-28, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > > I upgraded to the i386 version
it possibly an inline indicator on wired on question
which interface do you want to configure em0, em1 (down),
em2down) [em0] :
but wireless interfaces will always be down before you associate with the AP...
that said if using DHCP it is pretty obvious when a link is down...
and on a
Howdy misc,
I have an APU2 with the following configuration under 6.8:
em0 = WAN
em1 = bridge0 LAN
em2 = bridge0 LAN
vether = 10.0.0.1
prometheus$ cat /etc/hostname.bridge0
add vether0
add em1
add em2
up
prometheus$ cat /etc/hostname.vether0
inet 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.255
I have dhcpd
Thanks Stuart,
That was quite a complete answer. I think in my case to be certain any
errors I might find using ports are not due to something outdated on my
system I should follow your instructions and pull the updated CVS first
especially after doing a release upgrade.
Regards
Ed Gray
On Thu,
I wrote earlier in ports the same problem
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports=159241946411948=2
Unfortunately, I could not find a solution.
I think chromium is broken on i386
On 2020-10-28, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> I upgraded to the i386 version of 6.8-Release on three different
>
On 10/29/20 5:20 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I believe it actually operates at layer 2/3 below IP and uses the default gw
> IP
> to decide where to operate for a peer to peer link.
I'm not actually sure how that makes any sense as it uses UDP which is layer 4.
But this says layer 3
On 10/29/20 4:00 PM, Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
>>> Is there a reason why wg needs such a large bind?
>> I don't know why wg does that, because I haven't looked at the code.
>> Your configuration is definately pushing the limits.
> Allright many thanks Theo. Maybe Jason can chime in on this topic.
I
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 16:40, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
>
> > Is there a reason why wg needs such a large bind?
>
> I don't know why wg does that, because I haven't looked at the code.
> Your configuration is definately pushing the limits.
Allright many thanks Theo. Maybe Jason can chime in on
Nick Holland wrote:
> On 2020-10-29 08:00, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > do you think it would be possible for the installer to show
> > an eye-catching warning, if "ifconfig" reports "no carrier"
> > for the network port to configure?
> >
> > Just a suggestion, of course
> >
> On 27. Oct 2020, at 16:10, avv. Nicola Dell'Uomo
> wrote:
>
> maybe I'm missing something trivial, but I can't figure out how to cron sct(1)
>
> My user cron config works and cron log reports sct was executed, but screen
> temp doesn't change ...
>
> Here's my user crontab:
>
> #
Pierre Emeriaud wrote:
> Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 01:20, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
> >
> > I believe you are running into the restriction that we don't allow an
> > INADDR_ANY:port binding to be done after a ipaddr:port binding has been
> > done. It must be done beforehands.
>
> Sorry Theo,
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 01:20, Theo de Raadt a écrit :
>
> I believe you are running into the restriction that we don't allow an
> INADDR_ANY:port binding to be done after a ipaddr:port binding has been
> done. It must be done beforehands.
Sorry Theo, maybe things got lost in translation, but if
Le jeu. 29 oct. 2020 à 00:09, Brian Brombacher a écrit :
>
> Scratch that, use the ifconfig wgrtable option to specify separate routing
> domains for the port 53. This lets you initiate many. You still need to
> deal with getting the IP pointing at the right routing domain now.
I'm already
Hi Harald,
If im not mistaken when the installer is running when you configure
dhcp on the interface
t will warn you that it is not receiving any leases. I can see your
concerns about the static ip configuration
at a guess I think the issue is there is no config on the interfaces
so they
On 2020-10-29 08:00, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> do you think it would be possible for the installer to show
> an eye-catching warning, if "ifconfig" reports "no carrier"
> for the network port to configure?
>
> Just a suggestion, of course
> Harri
Why?
What problem are you trying to
Hello misc users,
I'm trying to have my http SSL protocol to be terminated by relayd, and then
the resulting plain http protocol to be filtered by some WAF before being
passed to httpd
I'm currently trying with suricata since it's in packages, but I'm open to
suggestions.
What would be the
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 02:44:39PM +0100, Aleksander De wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Are there any downsides or potential issues which may happen when
> extending boundaries for OpenBSD partition on >2TB disk while using
> MBR for booting it at the same time? I need MBR otherwise the machine
> will not
Hi.
Are there any downsides or potential issues which may happen when
extending boundaries for OpenBSD partition on >2TB disk while using
MBR for booting it at the same time? I need MBR otherwise the machine
will not boot. BIOS/RAID controller does not support UEFI.
Here you can see MBR with its
Hi folks,
do you think it would be possible for the installer to show
an eye-catching warning, if "ifconfig" reports "no carrier"
for the network port to configure?
Just a suggestion, of course
Harri
On 28 Oct 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020-10-28, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> > I upgraded to the i386 version of 6.8-Release on three different
> > Thinkpads R40E. On all of them, chromium fails to start, saying "Unable
> > to allocate memory".
>
> How does your datasize limit look? Try
On 2020-10-28, Ed Gray wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I think maybe this belongs to ports more than misc.
> But it's a general query about releases and ports as well.
>
> My question was actually about updating the ports tree from an older
> release version before trying to use it
On 28 Oct 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020-10-28, Ashton Fagg wrote:
> > Anthony Campbell writes:
> >
> >> I upgraded to the i386 version of 6.8-Release on three different
> >> Thinkpads R40E. On all of them, chromium fails to start, saying "Unable
> >> to allocate memory".
> >>
> >> I
46 matches
Mail list logo
