On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
SNIP
> Something like: "Even a thread started by Dave might eventually--if
> the topic has sufficiently departed from the original subject--lead to
> a (small) improvement to OpenBSD?"
>
> -Otto
Exactly!
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Tony Sterrett wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I'd do it in that way. I'm thinking if BPF provided stateful
> > > inspection is would be
> > > more useful.
> >
> > Asking for stateful inspection in bpf(4) is like wanting a carburettor
> > for a pushbike. You might be able to shoehor
I'm not sure I'd do it in that way. I'm thinking if BPF provided
stateful
inspection is would be
more useful.
Asking for stateful inspection in bpf(4) is like wanting a carburettor
for a pushbike. You might be able to shoehorn it in there, but it
won't
be pretty, will ruin its simplicity an
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Diana Eichert wrote:
> I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
> about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
> have occurred if I hadn't used "find" in my reply to Dave regar
> I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
> about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
> have occurred if I hadn't used "find" in my reply to Dave regarding "PF
> or BPF".
Something like ``please do not feed the Feustel again''?
Miod
I was thinking there should have been something in the commit message
about Dave contributing to this fix. The entire xargs discussion wouldn't
have occurred if I hadn't used "find" in my reply to Dave regarding "PF
or BPF".
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Ray Lai wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Matthias Kilian wrote:
> > >
> > > > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> > > >
> > > > BTW: if this is a contest
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Matthias Kilian wrote:
> >
> > > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> > >
> > > BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
> > > standard
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Matthias Kilian wrote:
>
> > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> >
> > BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
> > standard tools:
> >
> > $ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | s
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
standard tools:
$ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | sh
Yes, this isn't robust against whitespace, either PLUS it's
ineffici
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Tony Sterrett wrote:
> I'm not sure I'd do it in that way. I'm thinking if BPF provided stateful
> inspection is would be
> more useful.
Asking for stateful inspection in bpf(4) is like wanting a carburettor
for a pushbike. You might be able to shoehorn it in there, but it wo
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:32:53PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
> > > Instead of
> > > rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
> >
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for
On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
On 2/13/06, Tony Sterrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm looking at the tradeoff of porting bpf with states from linux to
OpenBSD from linux. Daniel Hartmeier in Design and Performance of
the "OpenBSD Stateful Packet Filter (pf)" says that pf is
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Jason Crawford wrote:
SNIP
> He couldn't even figure out how to find the applications that use bpf,
> so I think figuring out all the features in a utility might be out of
> his grasp...
>
> Jason
hence my original suggestion, minus my "|" miscue of course.
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
> >>
> >> Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
> >> rm is taking too much time.
> >
> > No point, xargs does what I need it to do, and is much more efficient
> >
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
> rm is taking too much time.
rm *is* a small program written in C. You need to consider how the
tools actually invoke it - think about it for a while.
-d
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
rm is taking too much time.
No point, xargs does what I need it to do, and is much more efficient
than having find execute rm itself. The fewer times you call execve(2)
the bet
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
>
> Why not use -exec in find?
>
> find . -type f -name tt
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
>
> > On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> >>> Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> >>
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
>
> Why not use -exec in find?
>
> find . -type f -na
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why n
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006/02/13 17:28, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
> > argument length for the shell by using xargs
>
> I haven't seen xargs do the wrong thing here. Embedded spaces annoy,
> b
On Monday 13 February 2006 21:25, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Dave Feustel wrote:
>
> > Marco,
> >
> > I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
> > crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
>
> Please show your appreciation by educating yourself using the
On 2/13/06, Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why so many people is using xargs ?
> >
> > I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
> > :
> >
> > find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
> > Instead of
> > rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
>
> Because that
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why not use -exec in find?
find . -type f -name ttt -exec rm {}\;
-- Pinski
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Dave Feustel wrote:
> Marco,
>
> I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
> crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
Please show your appreciation by educating yourself using the available
manpages (which represent a huge amount of work) before askin
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, noob lenoobie wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> >(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
>
> Why so many people is using xargs ?
>
> I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
> :
>
> find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm
Hi Dave,
On 2006.02.14, at 12:53 PM, Dave Feustel wrote:
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
It might be best in the future to first outline what you've done to
research your questions and then ask the question. Oth
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
>(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
Why so many people is using xargs ?
I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
:
find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
Instead of
rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
?
Richard.
Marco,
I would like to add that I appreciate the work you and the rest of the
crew are doing to develop OpenBSD.
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:36, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> http://www.oxide.org/cvs/tedu.html
> Commit Statistics:
>
> Total: 864
> src: 834 (96.528%)
> ports: 6 (0.694%)
> www:
dereck wrote:
The responses here are totally out of line.
So was his last comment in
http://groups.google.com/group/lucky.openbsd.misc/msg/942c4c6d5bc26fca
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:36, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Time for you to start using Linux, Windows or OSX.
> OpenBSD is clearly not fulfilling your needs
Your psychic abilities are failing you again.
> and the lists are unfriendly.
So What?
> http://www.oxide.org/cvs/tedu.html
> Commit St
On 2/13/06, Tony Sterrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking at the tradeoff of porting bpf with states from linux to
> OpenBSD from linux. Daniel Hartmeier in Design and Performance of
> the "OpenBSD Stateful Packet Filter (pf)" says that pf is more
> efficient than bpf, so it may be point
Hey,
BPF is a really cool pseudo device (software that's access like a
device, you'll see it in /dev). It is programmed with a assembly like
load/store instruction set. This is a very efficient way of
filtering incoming packets.
It used by tcpdump, pcap and ppp. Its neat but it doesn't
Time for you to start using Linux, Windows or OSX.
OpenBSD is clearly not fulfilling your needs and the lists are unfriendly.
http://www.oxide.org/cvs/tedu.html
Commit Statistics:
Total: 864
src: 834 (96.528%)
ports: 6 (0.694%)
www: 24 (2.778%)
Total Days: 1095
Average per day: 0.789
Oldes
On 2006/02/13 17:28, Jason Crawford wrote:
> Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
> argument length for the shell by using xargs
I haven't seen xargs do the wrong thing here. Embedded spaces annoy,
but that's what -print0 (to find) and -0 (to xargs) are for. I almos
On 2006-02-13 18:10:53 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> As done by xargs?
> > grep foo 1
> > grep foo 2
> > grep foo 3
Any arguments specified on the command line are given to the utility upon
each invocation, followed by some number of the arguments read from stan-
dard input. The uti
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:28:22PM -0500, Jason Crawford wrote:
> Well in the case of /usr/src, I think you must MIGHT hit the maximum
> argument length for the shell by using xargs, unless you did it inside
> of each directory in /usr/src. That and well, explaining xargs to Dave
> will end up lead
On Monday 13 February 2006 17:13, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Greg Thomas wrote:
SNIP
> > > > (b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
> > > why?
> >
> > grep foo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > grep foo 1
> > grep foo 2
> > grep foo 3
> > grep foo 4
> > grep foo 5
> > grep foo 6
> > grep foo 7
>
> One of the nice things about misc is
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {}
> > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
> >^(a) ^(b)
> >
> > (a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
> man ksh
The point being made is that '*.[ch]' is what you want. | does not
mean "or" in a characte
On 2/13/06, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {}
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > (a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
> > man ksh
>
> it's in quotes, this is handled by find, not the shell.
>
> > > (b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
> > why?
>
> grep foo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
>
> vs.
>
> gr
On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
> >^(a) ^(b)
> >
> > (a) I do
On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
>^(a) ^(b)
>
> (a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
>^(a) ^(b)
>
> (a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
^(a) ^(b)
(a) I doubt there are any file names ending in a pipe symbol in /usr/src.
(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
(SCNR)
Ciao,
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
Oh c'mon Dave, use the tools that are given to you.
find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {} \;
will find files that include references to bpf.
Your comments re: Ted are sad. I can't belie
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 14:52, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > You cannot learn all there is to know about bpf and how to effectively
> > use it in 10 minutes, so you, personally, do NOT need to use bpf at
> > all. It's what the other utilities lik
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
>
> tcpdump.
And there's more:
$ cd /usr/src
$ grep -lr bpf.h bin sbin usr.bin usr.sbin libexec
will give you a nice list.
-Otto
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, one thing is for certain, the caustic responders to this thread aren't
> psychic.
>
> So let's try a r e a l s i m p l e q u e s t i o n :
>
> What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
>
> Please don't try to figure out why I am asking the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:29:09PM -0500, Dave Feustel wrote:
> So let's try a r e a l s i m p l e q u e s t i o n :
>
> What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
I used this command, Dave:
find /usr/src -name "*.c" -exec grep bpf {} /dev/null \;
And discovered this list:
libpcap
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What OpenBSD programs use bpf.
tcpdump.
On Monday 13 February 2006 14:52, Jason Crawford wrote:
> You cannot learn all there is to know about bpf and how to effectively
> use it in 10 minutes, so you, personally, do NOT need to use bpf at
> all. It's what the other utilities like pf and tcpdump use to do what
> they do. The utilities are
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 13:51, dereck wrote:
> > This is getting ridiculous! The guy said he was under
> > attack.(!) What is the point of a _misc_ list anyway?
> > He's not clogging the dev list!
> >
> > The responses here are totally out
This is getting ridiculous! The guy said he was under
attack.(!) What is the point of a _misc_ list anyway?
He's not clogging the dev list!
The responses here are totally out of line. Haven't
any of you guys EVER had a desperate situation before?
Sheesh.
--- Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dereck,
>
> Thanks for the support. However, my situation is not desparate.
> By refusing to answer a question to which he indicated he had an
> answer, Ted has left all of us hanging as to whether he *really*
> knows what the differences are
On Monday 13 February 2006 13:51, dereck wrote:
> This is getting ridiculous! The guy said he was under
> attack.(!) What is the point of a _misc_ list anyway?
> He's not clogging the dev list!
>
> The responses here are totally out of line. Haven't
> any of you guys EVER had a desperate situa
On 2006/02/13 13:00, Dave Feustel wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What can BPF do that PF can not?
> >
> > different things.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Such as?
> (this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've
Dave Feustel wrote:
What can BPF do that PF can not?
Thanks,
Dave Feustel
One is a packet sniffer, one is a firewall.
However, you are not qualified to operate such tools.
Please disconnect your keyboard from your PC.
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What can BPF do that PF can not?
> >
> > different things.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Such as?
> (this might be a loong, drawnout thread,
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What can BPF do that PF can not?
> >
> > different things.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Such as?
no, if you can't read a man page, you aren
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What can BPF do that PF can not?
>
Your questions keep getting better and better. Just curious as to
whether you've heard of Google?
1. Make an /etc/bpf.conf and see what happens. Oh, wait, I don't see
a reference to a config file in man bp
On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What can BPF do that PF can not?
>
> different things.
OK, I'll bite. Such as?
(this might be a loong, drawnout thread, but I've got time :-))
--
Lose, v., experience a loss, get rid
On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What can BPF do that PF can not?
different things.
What can BPF do that PF can not?
Thanks,
Dave Feustel
--
Lose, v., experience a loss, get rid of, "lose the weight"
Loose, adj., not tight, let go, free, "loose clothing"
67 matches
Mail list logo
