Re: vmd: interface rdomains

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:06:01PM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: > Hi, > > the attached diff adds support for rdomains in vmd. > > In vm.conf, add an interface to a specified rdomain. local interfaces > work as expected, but the host-side routing and PF has to be done in > the non-default rdomain

Re: arm64 lock: no userland progress, several procs in wchan "vp"

> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 21:05:24 +0100 > From: Stuart Henderson > > On 2017/05/03 15:12, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:51:22 +0100 > > > From: Stuart Henderson > > > > > > On 2017/05/01 22:18, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > >

Re: Official OpenBSD 6.1 CD !

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Bob Beck wrote: > So. There *Is* an official OpenBSD 6.1 CD > > Just One. > > If you are interested, please bid on ebay : > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-only-Official-OpenBSD-6-1-CD- > set-to-be-made-For-auction-for-the-project-/252910718452?

Official OpenBSD 6.1 CD !

So. There *Is* an official OpenBSD 6.1 CD Just One. If you are interested, please bid on ebay : http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-only-Official-OpenBSD-6-1-CD-set-to-be-made-For-auction-for-the-project-/252910718452?hash=item3ae2a74df4:g:SJQAAOSwrhBZBqkd (It's a pretty cool little CD set!)

Re: OpenBSD Errata: May 2nd, 2017

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 10:26:02PM -0400, T.J. Townsend wrote: > Errata patches for dhcpd, vmm, LibreSSL and softraid have been released > for OpenBSD 6.1 today. > > Details can be found on this page: https://www.openbsd.org/errata61.html > > Binary updates for the amd64 and i386 platforms are

Re: arm64 lock: no userland progress, several procs in wchan "vp"

On 2017/05/03 15:12, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:51:22 +0100 > > From: Stuart Henderson > > > > On 2017/05/01 22:18, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:58:29 +0100 > > > > From: Stuart Henderson > > > > > > >

Re: arm64 lock: no userland progress, several procs in wchan "vp"

> Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:51:22 +0100 > From: Stuart Henderson > > On 2017/05/01 22:18, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:58:29 +0100 > > > From: Stuart Henderson > > > > > > Userland is non-responsive, machine is pingable, tcp

Re: arm64 lock: no userland progress, several procs in wchan "vp"

On 2017/05/01 22:18, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:58:29 +0100 > > From: Stuart Henderson > > > > Userland is non-responsive, machine is pingable, tcp connections open > > but no banner from ssh. No failed pool requests. This kernel is from > > today's

Re: less(1): plug memory leak

On Wed, 03 May 2017 08:03:06 +0200, Anton Lindqvist wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:36:51PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > > > looks good, ok nicm > > Anyone willing to commit? Committed. - todd

rdate(8): correctly specify supported NTP versions

Hello tech@, On receiving a packet with unsupported versions rdate(8) says that "Received NTP version %u, need 4 or lower". This is not quite true. Supported versions are 1, 2, 3, 4 and not 0. Index: ntp.c === RCS file:

vmd: interface rdomains

Hi, the attached diff adds support for rdomains in vmd. In vm.conf, add an interface to a specified rdomain. local interfaces work as expected, but the host-side routing and PF has to be done in the non-default rdomain as well. vm "foo" { local interface rdomain 1 interface {

what does "internet stream tcp 0x0 *:0" mean?

I've got an amd64 web app server running 6.0/tomcat 7.0/jdk 1.8. Occasionally I get a lot of FDs building up, looking like this in fstat: $ fstat | grep internet.stream.tcp | head -1500 |tail -5 _tomcat java 88950 1585* internet stream tcp 0x0 *:0 _tomcat java 88950 1586* internet

Re: Fix umb(4) on big-endian machines

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 10:12:04AM +0200, Gerhard Roth wrote: > Hi, > > all MBIM values are in litte-endian encoding but somewhere in the fine > print it reads that "the addresses will be in network byte order". > > So applying letoh32() on addresses is just plain wrong. On little-endian >

Fix umb(4) on big-endian machines

Hi, all MBIM values are in litte-endian encoding but somewhere in the fine print it reads that "the addresses will be in network byte order". So applying letoh32() on addresses is just plain wrong. On little-endian machines, we didn't notice since letoh32() is a no-op there. But one big-endian

Re: less(1): plug memory leak

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 01:36:51PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > looks good, ok nicm Anyone willing to commit? > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:35:59AM +0200, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:15:45AM +0200, Anton Lindqvist wrote: > > > While freeing tag