Re: Feed facility/priority to logger(1) via stdin - desirable extension or bad idea?

2022-10-16 Thread Matthias Petermann
Hello, On 07.10.22 21:39, Mouse wrote: Is there some reason you don't actually syslog() the log messages, then, rather than sending them down a pipe? It sounds to me as though you are going to have to make your log generator logging-aware, but, then, I don't see what benefit you get from piping

Re: Feed facility/priority to logger(1) via stdin - desirable extension or bad idea?

2022-10-16 Thread Matthias Petermann
[re-sent due to wrong patch included + wrong address of netbsd-userlevel, please apologize duplicates] Hello, On 07.10.22 21:39, Mouse wrote: Is there some reason you don't actually syslog() the log messages, then, rather than sending them down a pipe? It sounds to me as though you are going

Re: Feed facility/priority to logger(1) via stdin - desirable extension or bad idea?

2022-10-16 Thread Mouse
>> Is there some reason you don't actually syslog() the log messages, >> then, rather than sending them down a pipe? [...] It sounds to me as though there are two reasons: (1) you want specifying the facility to be separate from specifying the priority and (2) you're writing in a language, such a

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread Jan Schaumann
RVP wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022, Jan Schaumann wrote: > > > - I just can't _set_ the clock to any value above > > 68719476736. Anybody know why? > > > > There is a check in the kernel. In sys/kern/kern_time.c: > > 190 /* > 191 * The time being set to an unreasonable

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread David Brownlee
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 at 15:34, Jan Schaumann wrote: > > RVP wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022, Jan Schaumann wrote: > > > > > - I just can't _set_ the clock to any value above > > > 68719476736. Anybody know why? > > > > > > > There is a check in the kernel. In sys/kern/kern_time.c: > > > > 190

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread Jan Schaumann
RVP wrote: > There is a check in the kernel. In sys/kern/kern_time.c: > > 190 /* > 191 * The time being set to an unreasonable value will cause > 192 * unreasonable system behaviour. > 193 */ > 194 if (ts->tv_sec < 0 || ts->tv_sec >

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Jan Schaumann wrote: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >RVP wrote: > >> There is a check in the kernel. In sys/kern/kern_time.c: >> >> 190 /* >> 191 * The time being set to an unreasonable value will cause >> 192 * unreasonable system behaviour. >> 193

Re: Search engine for mail-index?

2022-10-16 Thread Paul Ripke
On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 11:33:55AM +, adr wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022, Paul Ripke wrote: > > Odd question, but what do people use to search the mail-index.netbsd.org > > archives? I went looking for a specific email that I knew existed, and > > I always delete mails if they are archive elsewh

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread RVP
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Jan Schaumann wrote: Do we have examples of what this "unreasonable system behaviour" might be, From the commit message[1]: --- kern_time: prevent the system clock from being set too low or high currently doing this will drive KUBSAN haywire and possibly cause system

Re: unable to set time very far in the future

2022-10-16 Thread Jan Schaumann
David Brownlee wrote: > > RVP wrote: > > > There is a check in the kernel. In sys/kern/kern_time.c: > > > > > > 190 /* > > > 191 * The time being set to an unreasonable value will cause > > > 192 * unreasonable system behaviour. > > > 193 */ >