who worked on ZFS.
Are you sure?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
is redirected by the shell would be
pretty confusing.)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
that.
If you were running the program as a privileged user you might want to
have this flag enabled by default so that if someone sneaks in a symlink
to /etc/passwd in place of one of the files you thought you were
processing, you don't accidentally do something you'll regret later.
--
James
it just right, find sees the regular file, but sed gets
fed a symlink. Boom.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
? wrote:
truss says it does not use O_NOFOLLOW.
Bug?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
really need to generate build infrastructure during compile time,
then something like SFW is likely to be more appropriate. SFW's build
infrastructure is different, and expects to rely on doing the usual
untar, ./configure, make install ritual.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
of the water, I
think it's a very good change.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/ 2/10 01:06 PM, James Carlson wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
On 03/ 1/10 11:50 PM, I. Szczesniak wrote:
Please restart the timer for 2010/067. The case directory didn't
publish its materials yet.
There are two issues with this:
1. It's not an open case
It's
application needs a signal per thread argument
holds a great deal of water. It just sounds like the application has
unresolved design issues.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
. ;-}
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Donour Sizemore wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 5:23 PM, James Carlson wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Nicolas Droux Nicolas.Droux at sun.com wrote:
Yes there is the performance issue, but I'm more concerned that enabling
the feature by default would cause these GVRP messages to start
Donour Sizemore wrote:
On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:57 AM, James Carlson wrote:
So what's the deal with the folks wanting GVRP? Are they unaware of the
security issues, or do they have a usage case where they don't care?
In this case, the feature has been specifically requested by a customer
On Feb 2, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Nicolas Droux Nicolas.Droux at sun.com wrote:
Yes there is the performance issue, but I'm more concerned that
enabling the feature by default would cause these GVRP messages to
start propagating on the networks of our customers who have
configured VLANs.
distinction to note here is whether the post-IPS,
post-build 131 OpenSolaris installers enable NWAM by default.
You might want to check the date when the review itself was held. This
wasn't a recent project by any means.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
mdb walkers
and/or dcmds provided to help out when using these, as we have for the
native list_t mechanism? If not, you may want to consider investigating
those.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
mechanism.
But, there's more to come to address the loop-back mount model
I'll be back.
Good to hear.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
.1 on x86 as well, or is that too hard?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
! That looks like the right thing to do.
_available_media Uncommitted Undocumented, expected to be removed.
Undocumented == Private
Other than that, this sounds great.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
to get a stable signal. :-/
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
, despite the apparent obsolescence of the
original stand-alone cards), and it wouldn't be good to encounter it
again. These problems are almost always completely unfixable once found.
If it must be removed for some reason, I think it'd be good to have a
replacement developed.
--
James Carlson
mentioned in that message, these are
really just nits, which is why I didn't bother broadcasting it to the
list or asking for an update.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Gold) card that I use on my laptop
occasionally because the built-in interfaces tend to stink royally.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
?
Nuking 3C905 would be another reason to go with Linux instead ...
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
1) No support for automatic link negotation/reporting. This means it
won't work with nwam.
2) No support for full MTU vlans.
3) Closed source.
None of those things
On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
I'm starting to think a derail might be in order, but I'd like to
know
how the other members feel. I'm neither the foremost security nor
the
foremost networking member of PSARC, so I'll just defer to the
decision(s) made by
the bad old default?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
solution is
coming soon.
Unless, of course, someone's just going to turn the big switch and
default all stacks to non-executable tomorrow. If that's the case, then
I see no need to make v2 special.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
it, and we really shouldn't have to carry around baggage ~forever. I
don't think the mapfile syntax was ever officially part of our source
compatibility story. :-)
I think that's a step too far. Yes, they're Committed interfaces and,
no, it would not be good to have them go away.
--
James
benefits.
Being the last OS on the planet to disable execution on the stack
probably isn't a good goal.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
whether the application uses loopback sockets or (say) SysV
message queues merely an implementation detail? Why would one means of
purely local communication among cooperating processes be allowed and
the other denied?
What's the principle involved?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
, you'd
have no problems.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
for their IPC.
Sure. But that's true of just about all of the LP bits, particularly
those things (like this one) in the basic privilege set. Anything
less than basic isn't really UNIX anymore.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Casper Dik wrote:
This project proposes one new basic privilege.
NET_ACCESS
Allows a process to open a network connection.
Looks pretty reasonable to me, though you may want to reconsider the
timeout. The fast-track running period is mostly occupied by the
holiday break.
--
James
of
responsibility. Read-only references are just fine here.
(And you generally can't import from a document, because they're not
executable. It's probable that this case or some case related to it
actually 'exports' [defines for use in OpenSolaris] this interface.)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
the state of the VRRP SMF service. I've placed a spec.txt
file in the case directory, and pasted it in-line here. The timer is
reset to expire on December 22nd.
The update resolves the questions I had. Thanks!
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
any VRRP routers.
Disabled by default seems like a perfectly reasonable answer, but why
does the administrator have to enable it manually when the service is
needed? The service seems to be an implementation detail. Shouldn't
configuration using the supplied tool be sufficient?
--
James
security guidelines?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
(1).
Is this new class usable only by ZFS, or is it potentially usable by
other kernel tasks as well? It looks to me like it could be used to
make work done by networking squeues and STREAMS service procedures more
observable.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
.
The zpool-poolname process is created separately from the scheduling
class. It allows the CPU time from the ZFS task queues (which are now
running under SDC) to be more easily observed.
Just curious: is that process created with a non-zero zoneid_t when the
pool is inside a zone?
--
James
there is one) is to talk to the project team members individually,
rather than a mailing list.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be right all the time, because at least
some review by an outside group of folks is certainly better than none,
and that's the most important part.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
::1 causes vncviewer to
drop core.
If so, then the update is a really welcome addition. ;-}
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Dumb off-topic non-architectural question, but this fast-track just
reminded me: does this update also fix the core dumps that happen on
v6-enabled machines? I have to type vncviewer 127.1:1 instead of
localhost:1 or just :1, because the v6 ::1
-track.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
, and that was enough to cause the code to be withheld.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Peter Dennis - Sustaining Engineer wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I've been contemplating setting up a community repo that could
reintegrate some of the platform support that is being removed from ON
proper, into a separate legacy consolidation
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
This isn't the first time such a thing has been discussed, and in the
previous runs at the problem, the real issue is not the mechanics of
setting up and maintaining a separate gate, but rather that 99 and
44/100ths of the effort is actually a legal
the _reason_ that the ARC was
formed -- to avoid the consequences of this choice.
But I've said my piece, and you know what I think of the plan. It
doesn't matter, of course, as setting up a new gate is trivial. It's
what comes after that's hard.
Good luck.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
at it, but could you provide a more concrete usage case? I
assume there's a consumer waiting for this, and details about the usage
may be interesting.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
). The door_xcreate interface has been designed to
be of use in eliminating that hackery, too.
Well ... with Fishworks not described in the open ARC, that's probably
out of scope here. (Though good to know it's generally useful for
others ...)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
if the compression ratio
drops below some set limit.)
How often does the user know for certain whether the undocumented data
stream actually has a lot or a little duplicated data blocks?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
-protected parts of memory.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
strong, so
that the probability of collision becomes too small to worry about.
Perhaps Darren Moffat can weigh in on why this kind of checksum is
adequate, because I'm pretty much taking his word for it.
That's the sort of review I was hoping for. ;-}
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
Venky wrote:
Sorry about the delay. Was a long weekend here.
Consolidating all queries below. Replies inline.
Careful with the quoting; I didn't write half of what you've attributed
to me. :-/
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 01:15:42PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
I am sponsoring the following
feature.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
are going.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
trying to understand the boundaries of a case
being reviewed.
I don't think that sort of thing is required, though. A simple release
definition would do it.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
J?rg Barfurth wrote:
James Carlson schrieb:
The Architecture Creating Council is two doors down on the left. ;-}
I agree that multiple-supported-versions is not the only or always best
solution for the problem of incompatibly evolving software. And that the
problem does not depend
of architectural review, or
something like it.
You're seeing incomplete work, not closed behavior. The two are quite
different.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
whatever service it was running before. The
new default does not take effect. The user must set the flag if he
wants to switch.
- When a new system is installed, it will pick up the new default and
run CUPS.
Is that right?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
written by one of the good guys at
Sun is deeply wrong, and needs to be corrected.
Just because some software isn't maintained at Sun isn't a good reason
to malign it as Volatile. You need better justification than that.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Stefan Teleman wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
But when the upstream really is sensible, and doesn't deliberately break
their own software (or, as in many cases, isn't actively doing any work
anymore), then applying Volatile (or External) to the interface
merely as a way to say this wasn't
John Plocher wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
We used to think that incompatible changes to
interfaces found in/on Solaris were always Bad,
and that evolutionary stability was always a
Good Thing.
Yes, stability is important, but it is not the only thing that
matters. Under your words, I hear
is completely
redacted -- apparently because it's marked manual but has no
.opensolaris files in it -- so there's not much to go on externally.)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
to have the base OS and GNOME delivered via /usr, but
the middleman X Window System relegated to an obscure path. This
project fixes that oddity.
No longer a Member, but a big +1 from me. Wonderful to see!
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
the process cracks.
- these things are unrelated. Really.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Think of it as linker mapfiles for packaging. The idea, unfortunately,
went nowhere. Too many people were either skeptical of the utility of
breaking up SUNWhea or of the value of trying to segregate private
interfaces better.
I'm
different (and compatible) behaviors depending
on who calls the function and how it's called.
Fortunately for the BSD queue macros, that really isn't an issue. They
haven't changed in approximately forever.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
is a very annoying application portability issue.
Removing them would be a big step backwards.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
On Aug 24, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Bruce Rothermal
Bruce.Rothermal at sun.com wrote:
My opinion also but then you can't sell support for code that is
only contributed.
That begs at least two questions:
A. Why not? It hardly seems a physical law that support cannot be
offered on
ns_* functions, but that
seems reasonable to me.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Rao Shoaib wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
| inet_cidr_ntop | Volatile | Undocumented |
| inet_cidr_ntop | Volatile | Undocumented |
| inet_nsap_addr | Volatile | Undocumented
under the wire (because the tools
unfortunately don't actually flag these new cases), then speak up.
For self review (automatic), it's usually considered polite to avoid
doing the putback/push until 24 hours after filing the case, for the
same reason.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
on
how they were documented upstream -- treating undocumented interfaces
and those documented not to be used as Volatile (or worse), and the rest
as Uncommitted or better.
Does Volatile really match with the upstream behavior and the downstream
usage? Or is it just a replay of external?
--
James
On Aug 17, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Nicolas Williams
Nicolas.Williams at sun.com wrote:
If I've misunderstood about the availability of daemon() in Linux,
please feel free to correct me. Otherwise I'd be punching the derail
button on this case.
It's there in libc in RHEL5.
It's older and more
them what they prefer. If you want to be formal about it,
ask to have the case derailed so that the PSARC members can go on record
with an explicit vote (rather than just letting the case time out, as
fast-tracks are supposed to do).
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
why is VRRP different?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
(though there
are probably Zones concerns with that), but I don't see why nailing it
to the wall is the right answer.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
by consumers. Contracts allow us to put the
normal rules of good design in abeyance, but you can't do that too often
or for too long a time, or bad things start happening.
In the case of openssl, it's been going on for a really long time.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
.)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Jennifer Pioch piochjennifer at googlemail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday at the PSARC meeting. Only regular PSARC members can
vote.
Who elected the PSARC members?
Nobody. Sun's CTO founded the ARC 19 years ago. Since then, new
members have been added by having
, you're just going to get yourself (and others!) frustrated for no
reason whatsoever.
No truce is needed here, because there's no battle.
Please. Take a breath. Perhaps two. And then think about replying again.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
of the system man pages.
I'm with Garrett about the inadvisability of baking man page
documentation into executables, but for ksh93-related things, I think
that ship has unfortunately sailed.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
, and will have essentially similar
results.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
, where the AF_UNIX socket file resides.
6. Add back-up router configuration example
I still don't follow the need to hold the VNIC open so that renaming and
DR are broken. If you haven't talked this over in detail with meem, I
suggest doing so.
The rest looks good to me.
--
James Carlson
.
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
Cathy Zhou wrote:
This seems to describe IFF_NOACCEPT as a per-ipif flag. Is that the
right granularity? It seems odd to me that we could potentially
configure the system to have some addresses that respond and some that
do not. The point of no accept mode is to behave as a real VRRP
Cathy Zhou wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Thus, at least for observability, it does not matter where you put the
flag.
Sorry that I wasn't clear. I meant to keep IFF_NOACCEPT and change its
definition to be:
#define ILLF_NOACCEPT IFF_NOACCEPT
OK.
Yes. My argument, though
Alan Perry wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
This is not the only criteria for self-review. Self-review cases must
also be so obvious and self explanatory that no further review is
desired or required. They should usually should not be introducing
new architecture.
I believe this case exceed
Cathy Zhou wrote:
From the address-owning node, it's possible, but usually you have better
(less volatile) addresses to use. An address that moves around leaves
questions about who exactly you're talking to.
In the non-routing mode (accept mode), I'm not sure what the right
practices are.
to signal VRRP when a routing daemon fails?
/usr/sbin/vrrpd Project Private VRRP daemon
Nit: this probably belongs in /usr/lib instead. No user or
administrator should be starting VRRP on his own, should he?
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
fyi, i'm not a psarc member.
i'm just a heckler[1].
ARC review: hecklers wanted.
;-}
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
This case had an inception review 3/14/2007, and has not been back
for commitment. Can someone clarify the relationship of this case
with 2008/532? Is this case (2007/132) just an umbrella? Or is it
superseded by 2008
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
This case had an inception review 3/14/2007, and has not been back for
commitment. Can someone clarify the relationship of this case with
2008/532? Is this case (2007/132) just an umbrella? Or is it
superseded by 2008/532? Or will the project team at some point
-
calculating tools. (And I'd really rather have a good way of
computing deltas -- especially as a non-privileged user -- than having
an inaccessible way to nuke kernel counters.)
--
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W carlsonj at workingcode.com
bug fix than an architectural matter. +1
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking james.d.carlson at sun.com
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
module. But
looking at the things that are already stored under (for example)
/usr/lib/fs/ufs, it's pretty clear that we haven't been sticking to
that model anyway.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking james.d.carlson at sun.com
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W
appeal,
in lieu of a VP or Fellow sponsor.)
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking james.d.carlson at sun.com
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
()Committed
elf_getshstrndx() Committed
elf_getshdrstrndx() Committed
+1
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking james.d.carlson at sun.com
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA
After discussing with the technology owner (Dan McDonald), we've
decided to close this case as withdrawn. The related changes will
either be implemented elsewhere or will otherwise not rise to the
level of system architecture.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking james.d.carlson
1 - 100 of 1009 matches
Mail list logo
