On 26/10/15 04:19 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> This is an improved revision of my earlier patch.
>
> It now validates the junk data in the delayed_chunks array in an atexit
> handler
> too, rather than just when allocations are swapped out.
>
> It will now catch this simple UAF 100% of the time:
>
Reyk Floeter(r...@openbsd.org) on 2015.10.30 19:25:28 +0100:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> >
> > i think it should be documented ;)
> >
> > otherwise ok
> >
>
> Ooops, good point, I missed the manpage.
>
> It looks about right, but maybe it is better to
Hello,
I'm curious what's need to be done in order to have by-four version of
CRC32 enabled by default let's say at least on amd64? Attached patch
is quite aggressive as I put an option into generic GENERIC, but still
I hope it may be usable as a starting point. Performance of CRC32 went
up from 3
> however, i found it interesting to get my head around this aspect
> of the system, and i figured other people (such as this years
> comp3301 students) would be interested too. i also felt sad i couldnt
> find kritaps mult code anywhere, so i wanted this to be backed up
> by everyone for future po
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:54:29PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> When we already had a valid ``ifp'' I used it. Since defrouter_lookup()
> is only doing a comparison, let's use interface indexes.
>
> ok?
OK bluhm@
> Index: netinet6/nd6.c
> =
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:05:09PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:48:16PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 18:27 +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:04:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > > > Socket splicing somove() d
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:48:16PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 18:27 +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:04:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > > Socket splicing somove() does the same thing. I will change it to
> > > > use m_resethdr() after t
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>
> i think it should be documented ;)
>
> otherwise ok
>
Ooops, good point, I missed the manpage.
It looks about right, but maybe it is better to have it less pf-
specific (also regarding bluhm's update)?
Otherwise OK
Reyk
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 19:05 +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:48:16PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 18:27 +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:04:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > > > Socket splicing somove() does t
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 18:27 +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:04:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > Socket splicing somove() does the same thing. I will change it to
> > > use m_resethdr() after that got commited.
>
> I just compared code in somove() with m_resethdr(
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:04:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > Socket splicing somove() does the same thing. I will change it to
> > use m_resethdr() after that got commited.
I just compared code in somove() with m_resethdr(). Socket splicing
has to clear the whole packet header, not only the
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 18:16 +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>
> i think it should be documented ;)
>
> otherwise ok
>
> Index: mbuf.9
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man9/mbuf.9,v
> retrieving revision 1.91
> diff -u -p -u -r1
i think it should be documented ;)
otherwise ok
Index: mbuf.9
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man9/mbuf.9,v
retrieving revision 1.91
diff -u -p -u -r1.91 mbuf.9
--- mbuf.9 8 Oct 2015 14:09:34 - 1.91
+++ mbuf.9 3
Hello -
I was testing some login data collection scripts (on a VM)
and discovered that in certain cases, it was possible for a
login record to not be fully commited to disk prior to
system shutdown, resulting in the last(1) entry for the
login not being visible. (was doing e.g. ssh root@testbox
> I want correct typing mistakes when booting from softraid crypto disks.
> Can we handle at least the backspace key, plz^Hease? :)
This calls for a libsa gets() replacement, which will honour bounds.
What about the plumbing diff below, so that softraid-capable bootblocks
can use the new getln() r
Sorry, the one I pointed out in ci.c is wrong:
> rcs_close(pb.file);
> - if (rev_str != NULL)
> - rcsnum_free(pb.newrev);
> + rcsnum_free(pb.newrev);
> pb.newrev = NULL;
pb.newrev can be changed by checkin_init or checkin_upd
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:51:57PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Stop using rt_ifp in this function.
>
> ok?
OK bluhm@
>
> Index: netinet6/ip6_forward.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet6/ip6_forward.c,v
> retrieving revisio
Hi,
is anybody still using SIGINFO to get reports from ntpd?
It predates ntpctl that is a sufficient replacement.
OK?
Reyk
Index: ntp.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.138
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.138
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:11 PM, David Gwynne wrote:
>
>> On 30 Oct 2015, at 9:13 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
>>
>> This is nice! Am I right assuming zone exec is a short-cut for not
>> need to implement Solaris' zlogin functionality? I'm not sure if I'm
>> as ordinary global zone user on Solaris abl
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:40:19PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56:34PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > --- sys/sys/mbuf.h 22 Oct 2015 05:26:06 - 1.198
> > +++ sys/sys/mbuf.h 30 Oct 2015 11:30:33 -
> > @@ -410,6 +410,7 @@ struct mbuf *m_get(int, int);
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56:34PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> --- sys/sys/mbuf.h22 Oct 2015 05:26:06 - 1.198
> +++ sys/sys/mbuf.h30 Oct 2015 11:30:33 -
> @@ -410,6 +410,7 @@ structmbuf *m_get(int, int);
> struct mbuf *m_getclr(int, int);
> struct mbuf *m_get
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 13:25 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29:27PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 +0100,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:45:31PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29:27PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19 +0100
> On 30 Oct 2015, at 9:13 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> This is nice! Am I right assuming zone exec is a short-cut for not
> need to implement Solaris' zlogin functionality? I'm not sure if I'm
> as ordinary global zone user on Solaris able to start process in
> another zone where I don't have log
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:56 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29:27PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:30:56AM +0100,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29:27PM +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:30:56AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:43:21AM
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:29 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:30:56AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:43:21AM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > > Question:
> > > > > How does pair(4)
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19 +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:30:56AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:43:21AM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > Question:
> > > > How does pair(4) interact with pf? If a packet crosses a pair
> > > > does it create
This is nice! Am I right assuming zone exec is a short-cut for not
need to implement Solaris' zlogin functionality? I'm not sure if I'm
as ordinary global zone user on Solaris able to start process in
another zone where I don't have login credentials. So that may be
difference between your zone and
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:30:56AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:43:21AM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > Question:
> > > How does pair(4) interact with pf? If a packet crosses a pair
> > > does it create a new state or does pf track the original state?
> > >
> >
> > An
i like this.
ok
Reyk Floeter(r...@openbsd.org) on 2015.10.30 11:34:39 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> as documented below, pairs in bridges can lead to a loop.
>
> I looked at "fixing" it but came to the conclusion a) there is no
> satisfying way with mbuf flags/tags to prevent the loop, b) it would
> limit th
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:24:15AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/10/30 11:34, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as documented below, pairs in bridges can lead to a loop.
> >
> > I looked at "fixing" it but came to the conclusion a) there is no
> > satisfying way with mbuf flags/tags
Hi,
when testing bridge stp, I got the following kernel messages:
splassert: bstp_notify_rtage: want 7 have 5
Want IPL_NET have IPL_SOFTNET.
I can reproduce it by adding/removing stp ports (stp pair0).
As it seems, bstp_notify_rtage() is either indirectly called from the
bridge ioctl()
I think it is never going to rise from the dead.
Original message
From: Tobias Stoeckmann
Date:30/10/2015 10:06 (GMT+00:00)
To: "Michael W. Bombardieri"
Cc: Nicholas Marriott ,tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcs: buf_free/rcsnum_free
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:52:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:43:21AM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> Question:
> > How does pair(4) interact with pf? If a packet crosses a pair
> > does it create a new state or does pf track the original state?
> >
>
> Answer:
> It does create a new state, you can filter between pair(4) without
> pr
FYI,
it is a good way to test bridge(4) and STP.
# ping 10.1.1.2
works fine in the following setup as rstp blocks bridge1/pair1:
bridge0: flags=41
groups: bridge
priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 maxage 20 holdcnt 6 proto rstp
designated: id fe:e1:ba:d0:9d:91 priori
On 2015/10/30 11:34, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as documented below, pairs in bridges can lead to a loop.
>
> I looked at "fixing" it but came to the conclusion a) there is no
> satisfying way with mbuf flags/tags to prevent the loop, b) it would
> limit the use cases of pair(4) for network te
Hi,
as documented below, pairs in bridges can lead to a loop.
I looked at "fixing" it but came to the conclusion a) there is no
satisfying way with mbuf flags/tags to prevent the loop, b) it would
limit the use cases of pair(4) for network testing in many ways, c)
the bridge loop causes heavy loa
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:52:02AM +0800, Michael W. Bombardieri wrote:
> Sorry. Here is new diff. Hopefully I haven't missed anything else.
You missed OpenCVS, which shares the same code base.
But is OpenCVS worth it anymore?
Even a harsher question: Is it time to tedu it?
Question:
> How does pair(4) interact with pf? If a packet crosses a pair
> does it create a new state or does pf track the original state?
>
Answer:
It does create a new state, you can filter between pair(4) without
problems and all features including nat work.
But it currently does not clear so
40 matches
Mail list logo
