L2 frame crc errors

[Dan Farrell]

Hello,



I'm looking for a way to view L2 frame CRC errors on an interface. I've
scoured netstat, but found nothing (from what I've seen it's all Layer 3
anyway).



I googled and came up rather empty ("FCS error openBSD", "ethernet frame
CRC errors openbsd", etc.) .



The purpose for this is to deduce duplex-mismatch problems on Fast
Ethernet interfaces where you only have visibility/control over one side
of the Ethernet connection.



If there is no way to specifically view counters like this are there
other counters (or a combination of counters) I can look to that would
definitively show a duplex-mismatch situation (as in no false-positives)
? I know there are error counters in "netstat -i" but are those always
going to mean there is a duplex mismatch problem (it just seems there's
a lack of detail there so those errors could result from a variety of
issues)? Is there anything to be gleaned from a "netstat -s" to show
this also?



I appreciate any suggestions,





Dan Farrell

Applied Innovations Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

how to view Ethernet frame CRC errors

[Dan Farrell]

Hello,

I'm looking for a way to view L2 frame CRC errors on an interface. I've
scoured netstat, but found nothing (from what I've known of it it's all
Layer 3 anyway).

I googled and came up rather empty ("FCS error openBSD", "ethernet frame
CRC errors openbsd", etc.) .

The purpose for this is to deduce duplex-mismatch problems on Fast
Ethernet interfaces where you only have visibility/control over one side
of the Ethernet connection.

If there is no way to specifically view counters like this are there
other counters (or a combination of counters) I can look to that would
definitively show a duplex-mismatch situation (as in no false-positives)
? I know there are error counters in "netstat -i" but are those always
going to mean there is a duplex mismatch problem (it just seems there's
a lack of detail there so those errors could result from a variety of
issues)? Is there anything to be gleaned from a "netstat -s" to show
this also?


I appreciate any suggestions,


Dan Farrell
Applied Innovations Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why gtk-gnutella stopped working

[Keith Richardson]

Karel Kulhavy wrote:

Hello

gtk-gnutella shipped with OpenBSD 4.0 is now obsolete and obsolete versions are
banned after 1 year from the Gnutella network.

If you are wondering, why it's suddenly not working, uninstall gtk-gnutella,
download the official one, delete ~/.gtk-gnutella, do Configure -d, make, make
install and it should work again. It worked just fine for me.

CL<


  
sturm@ has updated 4.0-stable to 0.96.3, the latest release.  
4.1-release is also at 0.96.3

how to configure bridge interface [WAS: snort any interface]

[Soner Tari]

I cannot see any traffic on bridge0 with "tcpdump -i bridge0", so that's
why I don't see any alerts on snort.

My physical interfaces are already configured and have their own IP
addresses. I need to assign different IPs to all 3 cards (LAN, WAN1,
WAN2). And here is what I run on the command line to create a bridge
interface (to use as a pseudo interface on snort command line for
monitoring):

ifconfig bridge0 create
brconfig bridge0 add vr0 add rl0 add nfe0 up

Am I not supposed to see the traffic on all of the physical interfaces
(vr0, fxp0, nfe0) using tcpdump on bridge0? (I've tried with pf disabled
too.)

Perhaps this is not possible at all with bridge intefaces? If so, how do
I achieve such a monitoring interface? Any comments please?

(Please note: this issue is important to be able to run only a single
instance of snort on multiple NICs. Otherwise, 3 instances of snort
really stretches the shared memory.)

Wireless access point being flakey

[Chris Cameron]

Have a Soekris with and Atheros AR5212. Wirelessly, out to the internet 
packets get dropped. Wired, out to the internet, no problem. This is 
with the same laptop using the same outbound internet connection.


Wirelessly, from this laptop to the router no packets are dropped. From 
the router to some remote IP, no packets are dropped. From the laptop to 
the remote IP many packets are dropped.


Running tcpdump on both interfaces:

ath0:
08:46:08.875787 192.168.118.151 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:08.943949 66.102.7.147 > 192.168.118.151: icmp: echo reply [tos 0xe0]
08:46:09.872006 192.168.118.151 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:15.291102 192.168.118.151 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:15.344601 66.102.7.147 > 192.168.118.151: icmp: echo reply [tos 0xe0]
08:46:16.287958 192.168.118.151 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request

sis0:
08:46:08.876374 70.72.102.186 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:08.943440 66.102.7.147 > 70.72.102.186: icmp: echo reply [tos 0xe0]
08:46:09.872583 70.72.102.186 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:15.291684 70.72.102.186 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request
08:46:15.344103 66.102.7.147 > 70.72.102.186: icmp: echo reply [tos 0xe0]
08:46:16.288543 70.72.102.186 > 66.102.7.147: icmp: echo request


It simply looks like the remote site doesn't reply. With PF passing all 
traffic the problem persists, as well nothing is logged by pf.



Anyone know what might be going on?


Thanks,
Chris


My dmesg:
OpenBSD 4.1 (GENERIC) #1435: Sat Mar 10 19:07:45 MST 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC
cpu0: AMD Am486DX4 W/B or Am5x86 W/B 150 ("AuthenticAMD" 486-class)
cpu0: FPU
real mem  = 66678784 (65116K)
avail mem = 52539392 (51308K)
using 844 buffers containing 3457024 bytes (3376K) of memory
mainbus0 (root)
bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 20/50/27, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf7840
pcibios0 at bios0: rev 2.0 @ 0xf/0x1
pcibios0: pcibios_get_intr_routing - function not supported
pcibios0: PCI IRQ Routing information unavailable.
pcibios0: PCI bus #1 is the last bus
bios0: ROM list: 0xc8000/0x9000
cpu0 at mainbus0
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (no bios)
elansc0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "AMD ElanSC520 PCI" rev 0x00: product 0 
stepping 1.1, CPU clock 100MHz, reset 0

gpio0 at elansc0: 32 pins
cbb0 at pci0 dev 9 function 0 "TI PCI1410 CardBus" rev 0x02: irq 10
ath0 at pci0 dev 16 function 0 "Atheros AR5212" rev 0x01: irq 11
ath0: AR5213 5.9 phy 4.3 rf5112a 3.6, FCC2A*, address 00:0b:6b:57:bd:4a
sis0 at pci0 dev 18 function 0 "NS DP83815 10/100" rev 0x00, DP83816A: 
irq 5, address 00:00:24:c7:19:b8

nsphyter0 at sis0 phy 0: DP83815 10/100 PHY, rev. 1
sis1 at pci0 dev 19 function 0 "NS DP83815 10/100" rev 0x00, DP83816A: 
irq 9, address 00:00:24:c7:19:b9

nsphyter1 at sis1 phy 0: DP83815 10/100 PHY, rev. 1
cardslot0 at cbb0 slot 0 flags 0
cardbus0 at cardslot0: bus 1 device 0 cacheline 0x10, lattimer 0x3f
pcmcia0 at cardslot0
isa0 at mainbus0
isadma0 at isa0
pckbc0 at isa0 port 0x60/5
pckbd0 at pckbc0 (kbd slot)
pckbc0: using irq 1 for kbd slot
wskbd0 at pckbd0: console keyboard
wdc0 at isa0 port 0x1f0/8 irq 14
wd0 at wdc0 channel 0 drive 0: 
wd0: 4-sector PIO, LBA, 977MB, 2001888 sectors
wd0(wdc0:0:0): using BIOS timings
pcppi0 at isa0 port 0x61
midi0 at pcppi0: 
spkr0 at pcppi0
npx0 at isa0 port 0xf0/16: reported by CPUID; using exception 16
pccom0 at isa0 port 0x3f8/8 irq 4: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
pccom0: console
pccom1 at isa0 port 0x2f8/8 irq 3: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
biomask f5c5 netmask ffe5 ttymask ffe7
pctr: no performance counters in CPU
dkcsum: wd0 matches BIOS drive 0x80
root on wd0a
rootdev=0x0 rrootdev=0x300 rawdev=0x302

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?
> They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom
> driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give
> a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?

Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web
sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of
the OpenBSD user community:

Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
allowing access to the source code.

The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under
the GPL.

(It is worth noting that even Richard Stallman himself understands that
the GPL and LGPL are not always the best choices. One example of this:
)

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Jeroen Massar]

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
[..]
> Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> allowing access to the source code.

Not exactly. The copyright owner can sell it for any price they want and
doesn't have to give their code away in any way. They can also sell it
as a binary+source. Their pick, full power to the original author.

Now the moment that somebody else gets the code they can either:
 - sell it on in giving away source+binary
 - give it away to everybody they want

What the non-copyright owner can't do though is share the binaries with
others. When one shares the binary one also has to share the source and
all the changes made. As long as the non-copyright owner keeps the
source and keeps the binary they don't have to distribute either. The
moment they sell/pass it on though, eg a linksys box, they must give it
away.

This portion limits "commercial usage" as anybody who wants to extend it
to make it do what they want, taking just a simple basis and adding a
load of options to it, they still have to provide also the source when
they pass on the binary to the third party.

For me that is unacceptable. I either give my code away for everybody to
 peruse or I keep it locked up in a closet.

GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.

For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)

Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will like,
then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you
patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the
moment you have other people's code in there which you can't
dual-license though, and that is the fun of GPL: you cripple yourself.

> The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
> about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
> compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under
> the GPL.

That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;)
See above for a nasty trick there though.

Greets,
 Jeroen

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had 
a name of signature.asc]

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Greg Thomas]

On 4/9/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?
> They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom
> driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give
> a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?

Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web
sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of
the OpenBSD user community:

Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
allowing access to the source code.

The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software.


Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.

Greg

The ultimate dance night Vrijdag 13 APRIL "SYLVER"

[the ultimate dance night SYLVER]

Hallo,  VRIJDAG 13 april 2007, gaat de ULTIMATE DANCE NIGHT terug door na een
stilte van 3 jaar in EXPO GOWALT (Wetteren) naar aanleiding van het 10 jarig
bestaan

Optreden van SYLVER (rond half 1 voorzien)

Dj's;
RENEGADE (Extasis)
RENIER (pancho villa, Vita)
KRIS (Enjoy)
BREMZY (Insomnia)
BJORN (Staminie)
MARNIX DE WIT (Enjoy)

Wij verloten 20 vrijkaarten, stuur gewoon je naam, leeftijd en woonplaats naar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] en maak kans op 1 van de 20
vrijkaarten.. De winnaars worden persoonlijk verwittigd donderdag
12/04/2007, onze e-mail adressen komen van de leden van de vzw wil je zo geen
mail meer krijgen stuur dan een mailtje terug met "stop"

tot fuifs


the ultimate dance night SYLVER

Re: carp, ospf can't see carp state

[François Rousseau]

Hi Claudio,

I have double check on my lab and everything work fine for the OSPF
part, sorry for my mistake.

But at the end, I'm still having the same problem: the server didn't
know the right route.

OSPF see all the route correctly but the system didn't seem to be
updated.  If I do "route show" I only see the local route pointing
directly to the CARP device instead of pointing to the other router.

route show give me something like this when my cable is unplug from
the "carp" interface:
83.201.77/24link#10UC   0   0   -   carp1

What do you think it can be?

Thanks,
FranC'ois



2007/4/7, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:21:19PM -0400, Frangois Rousseau wrote:
> But how I'm suppose to annonce the route for the right carp interface?
> Right now my servers can always reach the router because of the CARP
> interface but the router can't always reach the servers...
>
> If I unplug the cable of my CARP interface (bge2 for example), all
> traffic from this router (directly from him or from my upstream
> provider) can't reach the servers because the router still have only 1
> route going directly to his bge2 interface (the interface with carp)
> and he have no clue of the MASTER interface.
>
> Maybe I'm worng  and OSPF is not the solution.
>
> What I try to do is to have a redundant gateway for my servers (CARP)
> and I want to have 2 upstreams provider with BGP (multihoming)
>
> I need a way for this 2 routers to talk to each other and share their
> internal routes to know how to reach both of the "exit" point (route
> to both upstream provider) and how to reach the MASTER interface of
> every CARP group.
>
> Any idea?
>

If you are just running with two routers you don't need to use OSPF.
Use CARP for the inside network, setup the upstream sessions on each
router (perhaps even using "depend on carp" to fail over the sessions) and
setup a IBGP session between the two routers -- best via a dedicated
interface. Set "set nexthop self" on the IBGP sessions and you should be
fine.

--
:wq Claudio

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Jessie D]

Darren Spruell  gmail.com> writes:

> Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely
> short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison,
> both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset.

What does any of this have to do with the license?! It's *all* about copyright
infringement. Even if the original was licensed under BSD, you would still have
the same problem: you can't just take the code, strip the copyright attribution
and then distribute it as your own!

"Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

Sounds familiar?

So please, how is this a GPL issue again?

-
jd

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Tobias Weisserth]

Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...

GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the  
code to

you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.

For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)


The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"  
as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it  
"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my  
opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free",  
no matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD  
code. /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make  
the code "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not  
"free" code as such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a  
matter of perspective.


Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will  
like,

then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you
patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the
moment you have other people's code in there which you can't
dual-license though, and that is the fun of GPL: you cripple yourself.


You don't have to accept GPL contributions to your own codebase if  
you want to dual license. Their code contributions, your choice. As  
easy as that. It's all about respect. Respect their copyright or drop  
it. Easy, simple, fair. In fact, GPL projects offer more incentives  
of contributing that BSD projects. Someone wanting to contribute to a  
BSD project has to give up all control of their contribution. Not  
everybody is willing to follow down that road. The GPL at least makes  
sure that nobody can legally exploit a contribution without making it  
available to the users so that they can profit too. This is a much  
more valuable incentive to participate.


If you /really/ want to include GPL contributions in your codebase in  
dual licensing schemes, you'll have to ask for permission of the  
copyright owner of that contribution. This is the most natural thing  
in the world.


This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL  
fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!"  
cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD  
contributor who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by  
redistributing GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS  
repository. It's amazing how a community that should actually take a  
defensive position in a matter like this switches into attack mode  
and makes the violated party the culprit. The majority of the posts  
in this discussion, be it on undeadly, some other mailing list or  
here on [misc], reflect the mental pattern of six-year olds who  
cannot argue reasonably. I really have to admit that if these people  
represent the majority of the OpenBSD community, I am disgusted and  
most of all disappointed. But of course, it just may be so that  
decent people choose not to take part in these threads at all.


regards,
Tobias

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
> > about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
> > compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released
> > under the GPL.

> That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;)

I think you are misinterpreting "commercial" to imply "proprietary". It
does not: 

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Jessie D]

  fastmail.net> writes:
> > 
> > To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his 
> > efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
> 
> A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
> of code for anyone to use.

Exactly.

> So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius.

Not sure what you mean by "released" (tagged? packaged? announced?) but
committing code to public CVS definitely equates to distribution. This is how
the Linux devels noticed the problem, this is how I got the code, this is how
anyone can *still* grab that code from CVS history. There's no way in hell one
can claim this is not distribution. If you still believe otherwise, try
committing your legally purchased MP3 collection to public CVS and see what
happens ;)

Copying and distribution of copyrighted materials is regulated by copyright law,
so yes, you do need a valid license to commit somebody else' code to public 
CVS. 


> 
> > 
> > The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus, 
> > claiming license violations.

You call Buesch's neutral email an attack?! You have got to be kidding, he's
merely presenting the facts.

> > 
> > Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is 
> > kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver 
> > from the OpenBSD cvs tree.
> > 
> > Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users.
> > 
> > Thank you, Linux BCW developers!
> > 
> 
> 
> Forget it. I was annoyed by the "GPL" Nazis and was going to write
> a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to
> the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who "just
> don't get it".
> 

You people need to get your heads out of your arses and realize this has
absolutely nothing to do with Linux & GPL. Code under *any* license cannot be
stripped of copyright attribution and distributed as your own. If the original
driver was licensed under BSD, what Marcus did would still be a copyright *and*
license violation.

-
jd

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Adam]

Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"  
> as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it  
> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".

Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD licensed
code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD
licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.
Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and
everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not free,
but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free code,
its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
the GPL.

> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"

And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL should not
be labeled "free" in the first place.

Adam

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Robby Workman]

Tobias Weisserth wrote:

>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
>> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
>>
>> For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
> 
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free" as
> "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my
> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free", no
> matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD code.
> /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make the code
> "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not "free" code as
> such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a matter of perspective.


It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.


> This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL
> fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!"
> cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD contributor
> who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by redistributing
> GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS repository. It's
> amazing how a community that should actually take a defensive position
> in a matter like this switches into attack mode and makes the violated
> party the culprit. 


To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the
problem.  I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but
it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the
infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the
excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot.  Either
way, he admitted that a mistake had been made.
The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that
the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to
the way he pursued the issue.  There was absolutely no good reason to
initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a
bunch of other people.  If the initial mail had been sent privately to
Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or
perhaps the entire driver temporarily).  He could have then issued a
public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the
need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually
BSD licensed).  Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we
don't have all of this fuss over it.

RW

OpenBSD with RBAC?

[Lawal, Banji]

I was wondering if anyone out there has used OpenBSD with RBAC.  From 
what I have found out so far RBAC is only deployed with FreeBSD.  If 
anyone has any info about this please let me know. 


Thanks,

Banji

Re: waitpid() thread race

[Brian Candler]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 11:09:55AM -0600, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Instead of separating the obtaining of the pid from the actual
> reaping, you can instead separate the blocking from the return of the
> pid+reaping.  That lets you lock the datastructure only when you know
> wait() won't block.  To block until a child is ready to be reaped, use
> SIGCHLD, blocking it when you aren't ready

Hmm, I hadn't thought of doing the actual reaping in a SIGCHLD handler, and
blocking SIGCHLD while doing the fork work. Or, as in your example, using
sigsuspend to wait for an instance of a SIGCHLD signal to occur, and only
then calling waitpid().

This then leaves me with a bunch of edge cases to satisfy myself are being
handled correctly. For example, in your my_wait_loop():

> void my_wait_loop(void)
> {
>pid_t pid;
>int cstat, err;
> 
>for (;;)
>{
>while (!saw_sigchld)
>{
>sigsuspend(&orig_sigset);
>}
> 
>saw_sigchld = 0;
> 
>lock_the_shared_datastructure();
>do
>{
>pid = waitpid(-1, &cstat, WNOHANG);
>} while (pid < 0 && (err = errno) == EINTR);
>if (pid > 0)
>{
>handle_exited_child(pid);
>}
>else if (pid == 0 || err == ECHILD)
>{
>/* bogus SIGCHLD, just ignore it */
>}
>else
>{
>/* should not occur (EFAULT?  EINVAL?) */
>syslog("unexpected waitpid() error: %s", strerror(err));
>}
>unlock_the_shared_datastructure();
>}
> }

Suppose child 1 dies, causing a SIGCHLD to be pending, and then a second
child dies, before sigsuspend() unblocks the signal. sigsuspend returns, and
one child is reaped. Next time around the loop, will the second child be
reaped? If so, why?

I'm not saying that anything is actually wrong with the code you've
provided; rather, that it's difficult for me to understand the subtleties
involved in asynchronous signal-driven programming. And that's with a copy
of the Stevens book beside me :-)

Many thanks for giving me more food for thought.

Regards,

Brian.

Re: OpenBSD with RBAC?

[Joachim Schipper]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 02:46:32PM -0500, Lawal, Banji wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone out there has used OpenBSD with RBAC.  From 
> what I have found out so far RBAC is only deployed with FreeBSD.  If 
> anyone has any info about this please let me know. 

You are right, that doesn't work on OpenBSD. You might be interested in
systrace, though.

Joachim

-- 
PotD: x11/xsnow - snowy and Santa-y desktop

Re: waitpid() thread race

[Darrin Chandler]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> I'm not saying that anything is actually wrong with the code you've
> provided; rather, that it's difficult for me to understand the subtleties
> involved in asynchronous signal-driven programming. And that's with a copy
> of the Stevens book beside me :-)

If you have the Stevens book (APUE, I assume), and you're already into
threads, reread the part talking about how to simplify your program
logic with threads. I don't have it here, so I can't give you a
chapter/section. But the idea is to put things in a thread so that your
calls become synchronous/blocking. I believe the APUE example was a
reader thread and a writer thread for a socket, with each using blocking
read/write calls. As long as you don't add more complexity from thread
sync, this can be a win.

-- 
Darrin Chandler|  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  http://phxbug.org/  |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Re: waitpid() thread race

[Philip Guenther]

On 4/9/07, Brian Candler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...

Suppose child 1 dies, causing a SIGCHLD to be pending, and then a second
child dies, before sigsuspend() unblocks the signal. sigsuspend returns, and
one child is reaped. Next time around the loop, will the second child be
reaped? If so, why?


Hmm, nice catch.

In theory, sigsuspend() should wake up immediately the second time
through, as SIGCHLD should be pending as long as there's a child in
the exited-but-not-yet-reaped state.  That is, the first waitpid()
shouldn't cancel the pending state because there's another child
process ready to be reaped.  To quote the SUS pages:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/waitpid.html
   Otherwise, if SIGCHLD is blocked, if wait() or waitpid()
return because the status
   of a child process is available, any pending SIGCHLD signal
shall be cleared
   unless the status of another child process is available.

Note that last line.

However, OpenBSD 4.0 doesn't actually comply with that: after
waitpid() there will be no SIGCHLD pending, even if there are
additional children to reap.

So, if you're going to have multiple children, you need to call
waitpid(-1, &ret, WNOHANG) until it returns zero or -1/ECHILD before
you loop back to sigsuspend() again.  That way you can be sure that
you haven't lost any SIGCHLDs before you reenter the sigsuspend().
I've actually confirmed that that loop does work as expected, unlike
the original example which only works with one child.


Philip Guenther

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Tobias Weisserth]

Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Jessie D wrote:


  fastmail.net> writes:


To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his
efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.


A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
of code for anyone to use.


Exactly.


Exactly? How so?! If I take a look into the OpenBSD FAQ, using the  
public CVS repositories is a common and documented method of updating  
an OpenBSD system by end users.


So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't  
take a genius.


The amount of hipocrisy and denial among people on this list is  
simply amazing. Many seem to have a twisted and shifted cognition  
when it comes to waving with the red "GPL/Linux" flag.


Simply unbelievable.

Tobias W.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Tobias Weisserth]

Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:


It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.


That statement also is a matter of perspective. ;-) If you mean by  
"freedom", the liberty to do whatever you want, then BSD is freedom.  
If you mean by "freedom", the security that users have the same  
rights with the code tomorrow they already have today, even if  
numerous people contribute to the code, the GPL is freedom. GPL is a  
license that ensures code stays free in the sense of open for users.  
It doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. It's not you  
that's free, it's the code. That's what I ment with matter of  
perspective. You don't have to agree with this at all, but at least  
you have to understand and respect the idea and that other people  
contribute to this model. It's nothing that should be rejected like I  
have the impression it is done by many stubborn people on this list.



To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the
problem.  I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but
it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the
infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the
excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot.  Either
way, he admitted that a mistake had been made.
The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that
the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to
the way he pursued the issue.  There was absolutely no good reason to
initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a
bunch of other people.  If the initial mail had been sent privately to
Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or
perhaps the entire driver temporarily).  He could have then issued a
public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the
need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually
BSD licensed).  Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we
don't have all of this fuss over it.


Yes, that's exactly what I have been talking about on undeadly when  
that stupid "death of a driver" article was published to promote the  
myth. The reason why I'm bothering to participate in this discussion  
at all, is that many people claiming to take the "OpenBSD side" in  
this argument are actually no better than the bcm43xx devs when they  
had the idea to go public. This whole issue has been escalated  
primarily by OpenBSD folks, not the other way around. I'd say it's  
time to simply drop it.


kind regards,
Tobias W.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Tobias Weisserth]

Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:


Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"
as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".


Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD  
licensed

code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD
licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.
Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and
everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not  
free,
but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free  
code,

its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
the GPL.


Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really  
change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when  
it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use  
it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been  
originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,  
his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.


Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with  
GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if  
Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a  
closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes  
make the free software work on the device in the first place, the  
software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the  
software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to  
buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the  
originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,  
then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software  
unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it  
can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed  
software.


Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that  
incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a  
particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at  
all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,  
that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the  
Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.  
You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in  
computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL  
FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any  
devices that have been delivered with software based on free software  
and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.


There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice  
in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It  
all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no  
one-and-only-free license.



opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"


And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL  
should not

be labeled "free" in the first place.


I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect  
the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight  
a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the  
"viral" character of the GPL... :-P


regards,
Tobias W.

Cruise Master Alaska Specials

[Cruise Master]

 If the message is not formated, please copy below link in your browser
http://www.cruisemaster-me.com/promo/alaska.htm 


Experience Alaska   
 April 2007 






 Alaska's pristine landscape should occupy the top spot on any travelers 
must-see list. Spread over 3.2 million acres in Southeast Alaska, the Glacier 
Bay is protected national park and is home of 15 active glaciers, numerous 
seabirds, otters and humpback whales. 

 Alaska is a land of natural wonders, from wilderness and wildlife to 
awe-inspiring glaciers which advance and retreat forming ridge after ridge of 
mountain peaks receding into the distance. You will need every extra minute of 
day light if you want to experience it all in the land of the midnight sun. 
 

 From the awe-inspiring blue ice of a massive glacial field to the expansive 
grandeur of its wildlife and nature, everything seems larger than life.  But 
it's not just the size, it's how you fit into its gigantic proportions that is 
the soul-searing beauty of an Alaska cruise vacation. With activities and tours 
that range from the mild to the wild, and everyone succumbs to the wonder.  
   

 No wonder they say that once you've been to Alaska, you never really come all 
the way back.
Given below is selection of Alaskan Cruises


 7-Nights Northbound starting in Vancouver with stops in Cruise 
Inside Passage, Ketchikan, Juneau, Cruise Lynn Canal, Skagway, Sitka, Cruise 
College Fjord, Cruise Prince William Sound, Anchorage
Sailing: Jun 27, 2007
Prices from: USD 929 Interior, USD 1329 Ocean view and USD 1499 Balcony.
More dates and details  

 7-Nights Vancouver round trip with stops in Inside Passage 
(Cruising), Ketchikan, Hubbard Glacier (Cruising), Juneau, Icy Strait Point
Sailing: Jun 24, 2007
Prices from: USD 929 Interior; USD 1069 ocean view and USD 1689 Balcony.
More dates and details  

 7-nights Vancouver round trip with stops in Inside Passage, 
Sitka, Hubbard Glacier, Skagway, Juneau
Sailing: Jun 23, 2007
Prices from: USD 1179 Interior; USD 1429 ocean view and USD 1999 Balcony.
More dates and details


 7-Nights Seattle round trip with stops in Juneau, Hubbard 
Glacier Cruising, Sitka, Ketchikan, Victoria
Sailing: Jun 30, 2007
Prices from: USD 1599 Interior; USD 1849 ocean view and USD 2399 Balcony.
More dates and details  

Our Luxury Collection   

 7-nights ttarting in Vancouver with stops in Ketchikan, Tracy 
Arm Cruising, Juneau, Skagway, Sitka, Hubbard Glacier Cruising, Seward
Sailing: Jun 20, 2007
Prices from: Prices from: USD 3697 category H onwards
A luxury voyage with Regent includes:
Cruise fares and all shipboard gratuities; complimentary select drinks, soft 
drinks and hot beverages served throughout the ship; complimentary 24-hour room 
service; in-suite bar setup in Butler suites; and refrigerator replenished 
daily with soft drinks, beer and bottled water.
More dates and details  

 Cruise Master Middle East  has the most comprehensive ship and 
itinerary information covering various itineraries including:
Bahamas, Caribbean, Europe - Mediterranean, Scandinavia and Russia; and 
the Pacific.
Click Cruise Search on our web site and then select your preferred 
cruise line, destination and travel month to view available schedules. More 
cruise lines will be added soon. 



 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
All prices are cruise only in US Dollars, per person, based on double occupancy 
in select accommodation. Government taxes and fees are additional. Include all 
meals and entertainment on board and based on availability. Additional cruise 
dates and pricing are available upon request. Certain conditions apply. Cruise 
Lines reserve the right to revise its prices without prior notice.  
Unsubscribe from our mailing list.


 This is unattended email. For any feedback, click here.
Cruise Master Middle East FZC,
PO Box 10559, RAK FTZ
United Arab Emirates
 © 2007 Cruise Master Middle East FZC.   

Binary kernel and base update

[coolzone]

Hi all.

I have noticed that the OpenBSD team puts a lot of emphasis on using binary
packets rather than building from ports, which I think IMHO is good, but why
is it that there is no binary kernel updates, rather than patching the kernel
from source?

I am asking this not from a point that we find this difficult, rather in
OpenBSD its really easy. But sometimes its very time consuming, and yes there
exists binpatch and other solutions, but why isn't there an official OpenBSD 
way?

Last week management decided to go back to using Debian on some of our servers
due to them being easy to upgrade including kernel and basesystem upgrades. 

OpenBSD has really made a cool solution with pkg_add -u, but why not kernel
and basesystem binary updates as well? 

Best and kind regards.

Rico

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Marco Peereboom]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:08AM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
> 
> >It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.

blah blah blah

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Marco Peereboom]

I have to reply to this horse shit.

> Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really  
> change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when  
> it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use  
> it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been  
> originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,  
> his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.

Bullshit.  Code will remain free.  A newer version can be closed but
code that has been published under the BSD/ISC license is free forever.
Just like code published under the GPL license will remain un-free
forever.

> 
> Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with  
> GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if  
> Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a  
> closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes  
> make the free software work on the device in the first place, the  
> software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the  
> software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to  
> buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the  
> originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,  
> then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software  
> unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it  
> can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed  
> software.

You are talking without saying anything.  What is your fucking point?

> 
> Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that  
> incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a  
> particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at  
> all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,  
> that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the  
> Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.  
> You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in  
> computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL  
> FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any  
> devices that have been delivered with software based on free software  
> and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.

No it doesn't force anyone to do anything.  People/companies CHOOSE to
free up code because it's the shit these days.  I can promise you that
most changed GPL code never gets sent back.

> 
> There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice  
> in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It  
> all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no  
> one-and-only-free license.

The only good use so for of the GPL is java.  Sun gets to pretend to put
"free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL.  It will
never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain
full control.  The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it
"hates".  One has got to love unforeseen consequences.

> 
> >>opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"
> >
> >And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL  
> >should not
> >be labeled "free" in the first place.
> 
> I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect  
> the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight  
> a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the  
> "viral" character of the GPL... :-P

It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me
quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:
 * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.
 * able to do something at will
 * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
   burdens, etc. 
 * given without consideration of a return or reward
 * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.

Those are some of the entries.  The GPL is 100% NOT compatible with the
word free.  That's why people who can read call the GPL monkeys morons.

GPL is as free as communism.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Tobias Weisserth]

Hi there,

On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:


It is because you do not understand the definition of free.


Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I  
have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without  
even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by  
copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.


Tobias

Re: Binary kernel and base update

[Steve Shockley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

OpenBSD has really made a cool solution with pkg_add -u, but why not kernel
and basesystem binary updates as well? 


You can do binary updates.  On your build machine just update to -stable 
and do make release, then upgrade your machines.

Re: Binary kernel and base update

[Han Boetes]

Hi,

Try this URL:

  http://www.google.nl/search?q=openbsd+binary+upgrade



# Han

Re: Binary kernel and base update

[Will Maier]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:43:56AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have noticed that the OpenBSD team puts a lot of emphasis on
> using binary packets rather than building from ports, which I
> think IMHO is good, but why is it that there is no binary kernel
> updates, rather than patching the kernel from source?

Among the several likely reasons I can think of, one obvious one is
that there simply isn't enough hardware or free development time to
manage that infrastructure. It takes time and work to make binary
patches, and OpenBSD isn't as large (or as well-funded) a project as
Debian, which you mention later.

[...]
> Last week management decided to go back to using Debian on some of
> our servers due to them being easy to upgrade including kernel and
> basesystem upgrades. 

OpenBSD is quite easy to upgrade if you have a build host for your
network. Setting one up on a spare box is rather straightforward
(release(8), among other things).

-- 

o--{ Will Maier }--o
| web:...http://www.lfod.us/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Marco Peereboom]

> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I  
> have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without  
> even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by  
> copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.

Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong.

My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows.  I
perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color
blind.

bravo sir!  Intellectual point made.

CARP access outside a subnet

[david l goodrich]

I have two hosts in a CARP group.

on router-meus-cd1, i have the following network configuration:

router-meus-cd1# ifconfig xennet1
xennet1:
flags=8963 mtu
1500
capabilities=2800
enabled=0
address: 00:16:3e:71:ef:6f
inet 10.10.10.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.10.255
inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe71:ef6f%xennet1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
router-meus-cd1# ifconfig carp216
carp216: flags=8843 mtu 1500
carp: MASTER carpdev xennet1 vhid 216 advbase 1 advskew 0
address: 00:00:5e:00:01:d8
inet 216.51.247.30 netmask 0xfff8 broadcast 216.51.247.31
router-meus-cd1#

on router-meus-cn1, i have a similar configuration:

router-meus-cn1# ifconfig xennet1
xennet1:
flags=8963 mtu
1500
capabilities=2800
enabled=0
address: 00:16:3e:04:d3:e0
inet 10.10.10.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.10.255
inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe04:d3e0%xennet1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
router-meus-cn1# ifconfig carp216
carp216: flags=8843 mtu 1500
carp: BACKUP carpdev xennet1 vhid 216 advbase 1 advskew
0216.51.247.30
address: 00:00:5e:00:01:d8
inet 216.51.247.30 netmask 0xfff8 broadcast 216.51.247.31
router-meus-cn1#


The default route, nameservers, etc are all set correctly.

CARP works great on the 216.51.247.24/29 subnet, from any machine on that
subnet I can ping 216.51.247.30.

When I get outside the subnet, I can't ping the address or ssh to it.

Does anyone have some insight into why this is happening?

Thanks
  --david

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Darren Spruell]

On 4/9/07, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi there,

On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.

Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without
even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by
copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.


Then obviously your definition of what freedom means from the
perspective of software developers and users doesn't agree with this
community's. Why don't you carry on your views in a forum more
appreciative of that opinion instead of trying to sell it here?

http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html

DS

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Greg Thomas]

On 4/9/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I
> have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without
> even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by
> copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.

Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong.

My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows.  I
perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color
blind.

bravo sir!  Intellectual point made.


Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
with its fans' brains and twists their realities???

Greg

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Jason Dixon]

On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:


Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
with its fans' brains and twists their realities???


The real hypocrisy is this:

GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from  
stealing their freedom.  These are the same people who have no  
problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source  
kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight.


--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Greg Thomas]

On 4/9/07, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:

> Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes
> with its fans' brains and twists their realities???

The real hypocrisy is this:

GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from
stealing their freedom.  These are the same people who have no
problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source
kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight.



Yeah, when I first heard about the GPL way back when I primarily used
Linux I thought it was the coolest idea on the planet.  After
switching to OpenBSD for other reasons I finally realized that it was
the most selfish idea on the planet.  And that's not even getting into
the hypocrisy of selling out to closed companies, those same evil
companies that the GPL claims to be trying to protect us from.

Greg

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Artur Grabowski]

"Greg Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> > GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> > What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> > allowing access to the source code.
> >
> > The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software.
> 
> Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.

"I'm not kicking you in the balls, I'm just rapidly moving my foot in
the general direciton of your crotch."

However. This is an OpenBSD mailing list and we have our licenses
pretty much figured out, so if you want to discuss GPL, please do it
where someone actually cares.

//art

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Artur Grabowski]

Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi there,
> 
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
> 
> > GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the
> > code to
> > you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
> >
> > For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
> 
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the mailing list where you chose
to air this opinion is for you, so could you please air your concerns
somewhere where people actually care?

Thank you.

//art

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Adam]

Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of  
> free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective.

No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free.  The english language has
had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite clear.  None of
those meanings include being restricted.  Its not a matter of perception or
perspective, you can't just pretend words meaning other things and expect
everyone to go along.  GPL your code all you want, just stop claiming it
has anything to do with freedom.

Adam

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Douglas Allan Tutty]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:20:33PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
 
> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me
> quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:
>  * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.
>  * able to do something at will
>  * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
>burdens, etc. 
Any license at all is a release from the total copyright held by any
author by default.

>  * given without consideration of a return or reward

The GPL 'gives' to the comunity in consideration of getting back
enhancements to the origional.  The BSD just gives.

>  * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.
> 

Any licence short of releasing to public domain imposes _some_
restrictions.  There are just fewer in BSD compared with GPLv2 and fewer
in GPLv2 than in the proposed GPLv3.

Doug.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Lars Hansson]

darren kirby wrote:
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD 
community.


Wide-sweeping incorrect generalizations are awesome. Can I make one too?
All GPL developers are morons. See? That was fun, wasn't it? Who cares 
if it's correct, two wrongs make a right, doesn't it?



Don't bother responding, I'm gone. Have fun with your Broadcom chips


No thanks, I don't buy from moronic companies.

---
Lars Hansson

All new American Dentist Directory

[Oscar stepwise]

Just extracted - all new DENTIST Directory

Fields: Dentist/Clinic Name, Postal Address, Phone, Fax, Email and Website

Breakdown:

597,959 Total Records
6,494 Emails
6,000 Faxes

Special price until Apr 13 - $249 

For more information or to place an order please send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
To delete your email from our list please send an email with "delete" in the 
subject heading.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Lars Hansson]

Tobias Weisserth wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of 
free on me?


I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me?

---
Lars Hansson

Problem installing DSPAM (with postfix)

[Jean-Daniel Beaubien]

Hi eveyrone,

I am having a bit of trouble installing DSPAM with Postfix.  The
problem seems to be with the unix socket (and my lack of knowledge on
the subjecT).


Here is a small snippet of the config fordspam and postfix:

# grep -R -e 'dspam.sock' /etc/*
/etc/dspam.conf:ServerDomainSocketPath  "/tmp/dspam.sock"
/etc/dspam.conf:#ClientHost /tmp/dspam.sock
/etc/postfix/master.cf:-o content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock


And here is the content of /tmp:
--
# ls -l
total 0
srwxrwxrwx  1 root  wheel  0 Apr  9 20:11 dspam.sock


And unfortunately I get the following errors in /var/log/maillog:

Apr 10 00:22:17 mail_server postfix/lmtp[21514]: 2E9682B6:
to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, orig_to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay=15444,
delays=15444/0.22/0/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to
mail_server.mydomain.com[/tmp/dspam.sock]: No such file or directory)


This strikes me as odd since the file /tmp/dspam.sock seems to be there.

Anyone has an idea what's going on?

Thank you for your time,

-Jd

Serial Port Network

[Don Smith]

I have 2 older desktop computers (old Pentium 1 processors), and I would like 
to create a simple network to allow them to ssh each other and share data. 
Problem is that one of them doesn't have USB, but only a serail port. I did a 
search of the archives, as well as a google search for "serial port 
networking", and "tty networking", but found nothing relevant. I understand 
that serial ports are very slow, but I see no other option. I have one monitor, 
and two computers (towers). I would like to install OpenBSD on both of them 
(temporarily switching the monitors for each install), and have one of them use 
the monitor, and control the other via the Serial Port. In short, what I would 
like to do is: Set up the computers so that one of them has access to the 
monitor, and full access to the other system, so I can use each computer's hard 
drive, run commands on the headless system, and set up simple file sharing 
between the two. I know how to set up the file sharing, and have used
 SSH in the past, but my problem involves getting a Serial Port connection to 
perform the required data sharing. Any suggestions?

 
-
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

Re: Serial Port Network

[Adam Hawes]

Investigate PPP.  You can start a PPP server on one and a PPP
client on the other and they will immediately be able to to talk
and share data.

If all you need is remote login from one to the other investigate
putting a console on the serial port of one machine then using
something like Kermit or Minicom to log in.  The advantage is
it's really simple just to get a login that way rather than
messing about with PPP, and Kermit/Minicom support file transfers
if you need to dump files from one machine to the other.

A

Re: Serial Port Network

[Marcus Watts]

Don Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have 2 older desktop computers (old Pentium 1 processors), ...

slip or ppp.  You won't be doing much file sharing this way though,
unless you're *very* patient.

usb doesn't do peer<->peer networking, so I don't see what
good that does you.

You'd be *much* better off buying a brace of ethernet cards.
ISA <-> 10 megabits cards should be nearly free.  You'll also
have to score some thin-net cable and terminators.  Alternatively,
you can get twisted pair cards.  If you have PCI bus machines you
can do better, but that probably postdates your machines.

You probably don't need a console except for maintenance.
You can just swap monitors for that.  You could set up a serial
console & tip, but it's not worth it unless you have some other
reason you want it.  You probably don't want to run ppp on your
console port.

-Marcus

Re: waitpid() thread race

[Brian Candler]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:40:06PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
> > I'm not saying that anything is actually wrong with the code you've
> > provided; rather, that it's difficult for me to understand the subtleties
> > involved in asynchronous signal-driven programming. And that's with a copy
> > of the Stevens book beside me :-)
> 
> If you have the Stevens book (APUE, I assume), and you're already into
> threads, reread the part talking about how to simplify your program
> logic with threads. I don't have it here, so I can't give you a
> chapter/section. But the idea is to put things in a thread so that your
> calls become synchronous/blocking. I believe the APUE example was a
> reader thread and a writer thread for a socket, with each using blocking
> read/write calls. As long as you don't add more complexity from thread
> sync, this can be a win.

Right book (although unfortunately I have only the first edition).

I think I'm trying to do exactly what you say:

- one thread blocks on waitpid() waiting for a child to die

- second thread does interesting work, and starts workers when it thinks
  it's a good idea (e.g. system is getting "busy")

The issue, as I tried to describe in my original posting, is that if thread
one blocks on waitpid(), as soon as it returns with the PID and status of a
child, the second thread may fork a process with the same PID. I therefore
could end up having a data structure containing two children with the same
PID, one recently died (but not yet removed from the data structure), and
one recently forked. Or actually, my existing data structure could end up
losing track of one child.

The purpose of this post was trying to determine a good way to avoid that.

Regards,

Brian.

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[Timo Schoeler]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition
> > of free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and
> > perspective.
> 
> No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free.  The english
> language has had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite
> clear.  None of those meanings include being restricted.  Its not a
> matter of perception or perspective, you can't just pretend words
> meaning other things and expect everyone to go along.  GPL your code
> all you want, just stop claiming it has anything to do with freedom.
> 
> Adam

1984. Newspeak. Slavery (GPL) is freedom.

;)

timo

Re: Problem installing DSPAM (with postfix)

[Timo Schoeler]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:36:08 -0400
"Jean-Daniel Beaubien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi eveyrone,
> 
> I am having a bit of trouble installing DSPAM with Postfix.  The
> problem seems to be with the unix socket (and my lack of knowledge on
> the subjecT).
> 
> 
> Here is a small snippet of the config fordspam and postfix:
> 
> # grep -R -e 'dspam.sock' /etc/*
> /etc/dspam.conf:ServerDomainSocketPath  "/tmp/dspam.sock"
> /etc/dspam.conf:#ClientHost /tmp/dspam.sock
> /etc/postfix/master.cf:-o
> content_filter=lmtp:unix:/tmp/dspam.sock
> 
> 
> And here is the content of /tmp:
> --
> # ls -l
> total 0
> srwxrwxrwx  1 root  wheel  0 Apr  9 20:11 dspam.sock
> 
> 
> And unfortunately I get the following errors in /var/log/maillog:
> 
> Apr 10 00:22:17 mail_server postfix/lmtp[21514]: 2E9682B6:
> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, orig_to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay=15444,
> delays=15444/0.22/0/0, dsn=4.4.1, status=deferred (connect to
> mail_server.mydomain.com[/tmp/dspam.sock]: No such file or directory)
> 
> 
> This strikes me as odd since the file /tmp/dspam.sock seems to be
> there.
> 
> Anyone has an idea what's going on?
> 
> Thank you for your time,
> 
> -Jd

Check if your postfix runs chrooted(8) (check master.conf for this). If
so, /tmp should be in /var/spool/postfix/tmp

HTH,

timo

Re: bcw(4) is gone

[RedShift]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

I have to reply to this horse shit.



:-)


*snip*


Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with  
GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if  
Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a  
closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes  
make the free software work on the device in the first place, the  
software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the  
software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to  
buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the  
originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,  
then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software  
unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it  
can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed  
software.


You are talking without saying anything.  What is your fucking point?



Have you actually read that piece of text??

*snip*


There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice  
in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It  
all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no  
one-and-only-free license.


The only good use so for of the GPL is java.  Sun gets to pretend to put
"free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL.  It will
never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain
full control.  The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it
"hates".  One has got to love unforeseen consequences.


Have you tried submitting patches to them? You are just being prejudist. 
Please don't say things you "think", say things that are proven fact.



*snip*


Glenn