Re: Don't lock package db if fw_update(8) is not installing firmware

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 09:02:41PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:24:08AM -0700, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote: > > While testing another patch, I noticed that fw_update will lock the > > package database even if it's just downloading and not touching the > > installed packages. >

Re: Improve fw_update(8) output on errors somewhat

Here's the latest iteration of the fw_update output cleanup. The big change here is improved output if running fw_update while the package database is locked, pkg_add -u in one shell and fw_update in another. I'll be testing this a bit more and hoping to commit it after snapshots start rolling

Re: Don't lock package db if fw_update(8) is not installing firmware

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:24:08AM -0700, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote: > While testing another patch, I noticed that fw_update will lock the > package database even if it's just downloading and not touching the > installed packages. > > Currently we do _read_ the existing firmware as part of detectin

Don't lock package db if fw_update(8) is not installing firmware

While testing another patch, I noticed that fw_update will lock the package database even if it's just downloading and not touching the installed packages. Currently we do _read_ the existing firmware as part of detecting what we might need to download or upgrade without locking. I'm unsure if th

Re: Use after free in X config parser

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 02:50:10PM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > > I can confirm that there's an issue here. However in my tests, I don't > > > see a

Re: Use after free in X config parser

On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 02:50:10PM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote: > > I can confirm that there's an issue here. However in my tests, I don't > > see a garbled error message. > > If I set MALLOC_OPTIONS=F then a double free is

Re: l2vpn pseudowire and bridge type interface

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:07:11AM +0200, Wouter Prins wrote: > hello list, > > Was wondering if the veb interface is supported as a bridge for pseudowires? > The manpage doesn't mention anything about the type of > bridge interface required (bridge/veb)? I have not tried it but I think mpw(4) sh

Re: l2vpn pseudowire and bridge type interface

On 14.10.2023. 11:07, Wouter Prins wrote: > hello list, > > Was wondering if the veb interface is supported as a bridge for pseudowires? > The manpage doesn't mention anything about the type of > bridge interface required (bridge/veb)? > > /Wouter Hi, you could try tpmr(4) ... This question is

l2vpn pseudowire and bridge type interface

hello list, Was wondering if the veb interface is supported as a bridge for pseudowires? The manpage doesn't mention anything about the type of bridge interface required (bridge/veb)? /Wouter -- Wouter Prins w...@null0.nl

Re: bgpd, fix log_peer_info() and friends

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:16:13PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:01:06PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Extending the format string with the peer info is a bad idea. > > The reason is DNS^WIPv6 and scoped addresses which add a % to the > > string returned by log_fmt_peer.