Bob Beck wrote:
> Alas, you are changing the behaviour in many places now.
>
> for example you are calling exit(8) where previously the errexit code
> would print a newline then exit (making the previous interactive
> response not look stupid).
Good point. Oversight on my part.
> You are also,
Mention that collisions are theorizied for SHA-1 in the caveat.
Regards,
Index: md5.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/md5/md5.1,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -p -r1.44 md5.1
--- md5.1 4 Dec 2014 20:10:16 - 1.44
+++ md
On 2015-09-19 23:57, Michael McConville wrote:
>> What's your thinking behind this? To me this seems like a perfectly
>> rational and well motivated function to have, both for readability and
>> rather than having to repeat the same statements several times over in
>> the rest of the code, risking
Does this makes sense? I took the same approach used in chpass.1.
Regards,
Index: flex.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/lex/flex.1,v
retrieving revision 1.41
diff -u -p -r1.41 flex.1
--- flex.1 7 Sep 2015 15:28:06 - 1.
On 09/19/15 23:58, Ted Unangst wrote:
Martijn van Duren wrote:
Hello tech@,
The following patch adds $PATH resolving to doas. This has two advantages:
1) People are forced to configure doas with a full path, which makes
sure that applications can't be spoofed by users changing their $PATH to
a
Alas, you are changing the behaviour in many places now.
for example you are calling exit(8) where previously
the errexit code would print a newline then exit (making the
previous interactive response not look stupid).
You are also, of course, spitting out "fcsk:" in front of the error
messag
Bob Beck wrote:
> Michael McConville wrote:
> > Bob Beck wrote:
> > > seeing "8" everywhere here makes me think I'm in OpenSSL code.
> > >
> > > please make that some sort of sensible define.
> > >
> > > And post this with the removal of the function, so do it
> > > everywhere. I can't tell fro
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 05:57:23PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> If you're abstracting something into a function, it definitely shouldn't
> be creating more code.
Yet this shouldn't stop you from performing "divide and conquer". It's
not just about reducing lines of code when abstracting logi
Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello tech@,
>
> The following patch adds $PATH resolving to doas. This has two advantages:
> 1) People are forced to configure doas with a full path, which makes
> sure that applications can't be spoofed by users changing their $PATH to
> a writeable location and maki
> What's your thinking behind this? To me this seems like a perfectly
> rational and well motivated function to have, both for readability and
> rather than having to repeat the same statements several times over in
> the rest of the code, risking future calamity if a change is made in
> one place
On 2015-09-19 20:29, Michael McConville wrote:
> Index: locate/fastfind.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/locate/locate/fastfind.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.12
> diff -u -p -r1.12 fastfind.c
> --- locate/fastfind.c 16 Jan 2015 06:40
Bob Beck wrote:
> seeing "8" everywhere here makes me think I'm in OpenSSL code.
>
> please make that some sort of sensible define.
>
> And post this with the removal of the function, so do it
> everywhere. I can't tell from the diff that it's sane.
Below is a complete removal of errexit(), a
Hi,
This was done with pod2mdoc + various manual tweaking.
Besides the macro changes, there are few differences between the
original manual's text. This is done in order to ease review.
This is the reason why there are many references to non-existent
manuals, e.g., rc4(3), stack(3), and txt_db(3
The lockmgr_printinfo() function has been replaced with a dysfunctional
stub in May 2013 and doesn't seem to have been missed thereafter. I
would like to kill that stub to remove clutter from the (already hard to
understand) filesystem implementations.
Ok?
natano
Index: isofs/udf/udf_vnops.c
==
seeing "8" everywhere here makes me think I'm in OpenSSL code.
please make that some sort of sensible define.
And post this with the removal of the function, so do it
everywhere. I can't tell from the diff that it's sane.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:14:35PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
>
Michael McConville wrote:
> The best I can tell, fsck's errexit() is just a clone of errx() (less
> the "progname: " prefix and the appended newline).
>
> If we delete it from fsck_ffs, fsck_ext2fs, and fsck_msdos, we can
> remove its definition in fsck. This diff is just for fsck_ffs.
> (fsck_msd
Index: bsd.port.mk.5
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5,v
retrieving revision 1.420
diff -u -p -r1.420 bsd.port.mk.5
--- bsd.port.mk.5 16 Sep 2015 19:59:57 - 1.420
+++ bsd.port.mk.5 19 Sep 2015 19:
The best I can tell, fsck's errexit() is just a clone of errx() (less
the "progname: " prefix and the appended newline).
If we delete it from fsck_ffs, fsck_ext2fs, and fsck_msdos, we can
remove its definition in fsck. This diff is just for fsck_ffs.
(fsck_msdos has only one use.)
Another trivial
Hi Ingo,
On 09/16/15 16:16, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hum, mixing small and large changes is not a very good idea.
> When proposing a large change, it is best to send one self-contained
> patch doing nothing but that large change.
Sure; unlike the LKML, it doesn't seem to be common practice here to
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> In the internal conversion of _TM_* to TAME_*, some bits were lost for
> "dns" and "cmsg" in the `tamereq' array.
...
> The following patch restore the behaviour, and make the regress too work
> again.
>
> Comments ? OK ?
Yep. ok guenther@
Hello tech@,
The following patch adds $PATH resolving to doas. This has two advantages:
1) People are forced to configure doas with a full path, which makes
sure that applications can't be spoofed by users changing their $PATH to
a writeable location and making copies of other (potential danger
Index: buf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/make/buf.c,v
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -p -r1.27 buf.c
--- buf.c 29 Apr 2015 00:42:12 - 1.27
+++ buf.c 19 Sep 2015 18:35:22 -
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@
* Functio
Index: locate/fastfind.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/locate/locate/fastfind.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -r1.12 fastfind.c
--- locate/fastfind.c 16 Jan 2015 06:40:09 - 1.12
+++ locate/fastfind.c 19 Sep 2015 1
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:48:01AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:07:04AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sebastien Marie
> >> wrote:
> >> > While working on building llvm
Drop some unnecessary NULL checks, explicitly bzero sensitive memory.
Index: config.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/iked/config.c,v
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -p -r1.37 config.c
--- config.c21 Aug 2015 11:59:27 - 1.3
On 09/18/15 23:39, David Hill wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:05:55PM +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
>> On 09/18/15 15:18, David Hill wrote:
>>> Is this 'if (count)' statement needed? We know first > last, so count
>>> will always be positive. lastport will always be set.
>>
>>> if last == first
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:50:41 +0200
> From: Sebastien Marie
>
> Hi,
>
> While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
> i386), I encounter a problem when linking a shared library, while
> -Wl,-z,defs was passed on command-line.
>
> I build a minimal reproductible testc
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:29:56 +0200, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:07:04AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sebastien Marie
> > wrote:
> > > While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
> > > i386), I encounter a proble
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:07:04AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
>> > While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
>> > i386), I encounter a problem when li
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:07:04AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
> > i386), I encounter a problem when linking a shared library, while
> > -Wl,-z,defs was passed on com
I don't think there's anything special about init that requires mode 0500. if
a regular user wants to run it, let them. i mean, if running init would do
something evil, i've got bad news. i can build my own...
also, the makefile contains (thankfully) ignored install flags. delete them
too.
Index
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
> i386), I encounter a problem when linking a shared library, while
> -Wl,-z,defs was passed on command-line.
>
> I build a minimal reproductible testcase:
>
> $ touch test
Hi,
While working on building llvm 3.7.0 on openbsd (-current amd64 and
i386), I encounter a problem when linking a shared library, while
-Wl,-z,defs was passed on command-line.
I build a minimal reproductible testcase:
$ touch test.c
$ c++ -Wl,-z,defs -shared -o libtest.so test.c
/usr/lib/crtbe
Aye, The bilge keel for him - or we make him a hempen halter and hoist
the treacherous scum o're the yardarm... Arr!
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Brent Cook wrote:
> It be significant that this patch slowed me browser because o' it's length.
>
> Methinks you deserve t' be keelhauled for such
It be significant that this patch slowed me browser because o' it's length.
Methinks you deserve t' be keelhauled for such transgressions.
35 matches
Mail list logo
