bsd.sp and bsd.mp kernels, how to compile?
The last time I followed the FAQ compiling kernels was on single processor machines. I just installed OpenBSD on my daily driver dual core Intel box. The kernel, userland, and xenocara compiles ran fine as usual. Then I realized DOH! I was running the sp kernel since I never had a machine where I needed the MP kernel before. I built the MP kernel and installed it. If I am following stable and want to have sp and mp kernels what order should I compile them in, does it matter? /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: bsd.sp and bsd.mp kernels, how to compile?
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 10:04:04AM +, John Long wrote: | The last time I followed the FAQ compiling kernels was on single processor | machines. I just installed OpenBSD on my daily driver dual core Intel | box. The kernel, userland, and xenocara compiles ran fine as usual. Then I | realized DOH! I was running the sp kernel since I never had a machine where | I needed the MP kernel before. I built the MP kernel and installed it. | | If I am following stable and want to have sp and mp kernels what order | should I compile them in, does it matter? Doesn't matter. They're built in separate directories and do not interact (unlike the config file for them, where GENERIC.MP sets some MP stuff and otherwise simply includes GENERIC, see [1]). Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd [1]: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/amd64/conf/GENERIC.MP?rev=1.10;content-type=text%2Fplain -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: bsd.sp and bsd.mp kernels, how to compile?
Thanks Paul. In that case I guess it would be simpler to do the sp kernel first since the make install causes it to get booted. Then when I do the mp kernel and install it everything will be ready to build the rest with the mp kernel. /jl On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 11:45:03AM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 10:04:04AM +, John Long wrote: > | The last time I followed the FAQ compiling kernels was on single processor > | machines. I just installed OpenBSD on my daily driver dual core Intel > | box. The kernel, userland, and xenocara compiles ran fine as usual. Then I > | realized DOH! I was running the sp kernel since I never had a machine where > | I needed the MP kernel before. I built the MP kernel and installed it. > | > | If I am following stable and want to have sp and mp kernels what order > | should I compile them in, does it matter? > > Doesn't matter. They're built in separate directories and do not > interact (unlike the config file for them, where GENERIC.MP sets some > MP stuff and otherwise simply includes GENERIC, see [1]). > > Cheers, > > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd > > [1]: > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/amd64/conf/GENERIC.MP?rev=1.10;content-type=text%2Fplain > > -- > >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ > +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/ > -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: bsd.sp and bsd.mp kernels, how to compile?
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 10:58:09AM +, John Long wrote: | Thanks Paul. In that case I guess it would be simpler to do the sp kernel | first since the make install causes it to get booted. Then when I do the mp | kernel and install it everything will be ready to build the rest with the mp | kernel. Or don't make install GENERIC. Why do you want to build the SP kernel if you're not going to use it ? If you're following stable, you may want to make a release and then use the kernels so produced. Alternatively, you can `make` GENERIC and `make install` GENERIC.MP. Or just skip making the SP kernel, you don't need to have it around per se ;) Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: BSD licensed gnupg replacement question
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Maximo Pech [mak...@gmail.com] wrote: >> I said I can't code that. > > If you already knew the answer was "write it", then you asked the wrong > question. > >> I know that gnupg is in the ports tree, but it >> just seems strange to me that it isn't on the base system, because for me >> it sounds logical that if one of the key points of openbsd is cryptography, >> it would have a bsd tool like gnupg. The netpgp thing looks very cool, I >> didn't know about it. >> > > Do you have any idea how abusrd this is? > >> So my question is why there isn't a tool like that on base, I'm asking out >> of curiosity, maybe some historical, reason, technical... I'm not trying to >> point this as a fault, I just want to understand better the fact that gnupg >> or a bsd licensed equivalent isn't in the base system. >> > > The original PGP program was mostly public domain. As time went on, it went > to a > highly restrictive license. GnuPG, and later, NetPGP represent the people who > had desires to fix that problem. If you want to do it again, nobody will stop > you. > > OpenSSH and OpenBSD IPsec represent the OpenBSD solutions to the quality and > licensing problems in those areas. OpenSSH is still the gold standard, > OCF/IPsec, > maybe not. PGP worked, was public domain, encrypts files, and solved one > problem. > Network layer encryption is an entirely different, and for many, a much more > important problem. SSH is the gold standard: OpenSSH is the popular and effective freeware version, which did solve a number of issues. The early history of SSH is interesting, and covered reasonably well at http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/ssh/ch01_05.htm.
Re: bsd.sp and bsd.mp kernels, how to compile?
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 12:21:34PM +0100, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 10:58:09AM +, John Long wrote: > | Thanks Paul. In that case I guess it would be simpler to do the sp kernel > | first since the make install causes it to get booted. Then when I do the mp > | kernel and install it everything will be ready to build the rest with the mp > | kernel. > > Or don't make install GENERIC. Why do you want to build the SP kernel > if you're not going to use it ? If I didn't stumble upon it I probably wouldn't even think about it. Now that I did I figured it would be good for testing once in a while if anything that appears to possibly be timing-related happens with the mp kernel. It only takes a few minutes to compile. > If you're following stable, you may want to make a release and then use > the kernels so produced. At this point this is the only AMD64 box I have OpenBSD on. > Alternatively, you can `make` GENERIC and `make install` GENERIC.MP. > Or just skip making the SP kernel, you don't need to have it around > per se ;) I didn't know if make generic would leave a finished bsd.sp kernel in / Not sure what the kernel make install target does, since I wasn't paying attention after building the kernel a bunch of times on my Fuloong box. If make builds a kernel and leaves it in / and just doesn't point the bootloader at it that will be enough and I'll just make install the mp kernel like I think you are saying. Thanks, /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
Re: qemu -nographic
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:58:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > On 11 January 2011 11:18, wrote: > > The trick with /etc/boot.conf does work; this should transform the > > cd48.iso install cd into a 'serial' one: > > > > $ echo 'set tty com0' > /tmp/boot.conf > > $ growisofs -M cd48.iso -l -graft-points /etc/boot.conf=/tmp/boot.conf > > > > Then: > > $ qemu -nographic -cdrom cd48.iso > >>> OpenBSD/i386 CDBOOT 3.15 > > boot> > > booting cd0a:/4.8/i386/bsd.rd: 5900404 > > I've tried this on a Linux, and it worked for getting OpenBSD > installer to boot through a serial console. > > However, I was using install52.iso, which includes the filesets, and I > was not able to install any filesets from a CD that was altered by > growisofs on Linux as above. Looking at /mnt2 during the install, > I've noticed that all filenames were in CAPS, and "/mnt2/TRANS.TBL" > was missing (however, all appropriate "/mnt2/*/TRANS.TBL" and > "/mnt2/*/*/TRANS.TBL" were still present and correct). You should the -R or -J option with growisofs for mixed/lower case filenames. As to the TRANS.TBL files, they're just for kicks; nobody's using them, ever. > I worked around by adding the original CD as a regular drive, and > selecting "disk" and "wd0" for installing the filesets. The ISO > filesystem was mounted from wd0 automatically and with no problems or > hoops. > > apt-get install dvd+rw-tools > echo 'set tty com0' > boot.conf > cp -p install52.iso install52.iso.origFromFTP > growisofs -M install52.iso -l -graft-points /etc/boot.conf=boot.conf make that: growisofs -M install52.iso -l -R -graft-points /etc/boot.conf=boot.conf > kvm -m 6144 -smp 4 -drive file=/dev/sda,if=scsi \ > -drive file=/dev/sdb,if=scsi -drive file=/dev/sdc,if=scsi \ > -drive file=install52.iso.origFromFTP -cdrom install52.iso -boot d > -nographic
Installing 5.2 with PXE
Hi, I want to install OpenBSD 5.2 amd64 with PXE so I downloaded the latest bsd.rd and pxeboot file from: ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.2/amd64/ and put it on my TFTP/DHCP server but when I boot this specific files I get the installer for OpenBSD 5.1 and not 5.2. Is this intentional? or am I doing something wrong here? Regards, ML
Re: BSD licensed gnupg replacement question
Nico Kadel-Garcia [nka...@gmail.com] wrote: > > SSH is the gold standard: OpenSSH is the popular and effective > freeware version, which did solve a number of issues. The early > history of SSH is interesting, and covered reasonably well at > http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/ssh/ch01_05.htm. Hunh? How does that change anything?
Re: BSD licensed gnupg replacement question
On 12/09/12 06:50, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: ,,, >> OpenSSH and OpenBSD IPsec represent the OpenBSD solutions to the quality and >> licensing problems in those areas. OpenSSH is still the gold standard, >> OCF/IPsec, >> maybe not. PGP worked, was public domain, encrypts files, and solved one >> problem. >> Network layer encryption is an entirely different, and for many, a much more >> important problem. > > SSH is the gold standard: OpenSSH is the popular and effective > freeware version, which did solve a number of issues. i.e., the "better than gold standard". Thanks for the clarification. I agree completely. :) I've actually used an "appliance" which used ssh.com's SSH. I suspect I am in the vast minority in that regard. That particular manufacturer switched to OpenSSH in a later version of their products. I talked to them about why they used SSH.com's product (and had a separate license key in place just for it) rather than OpenSSH. It appears it was something of an internal question; no one still there was quite sure why they did that. Nick.
Re: Installing 5.2 with PXE
On 12/09/12 11:17, ML mail wrote: > Hi, > > I want to install OpenBSD 5.2 amd64 with PXE so I downloaded the > latest bsd.rd and pxeboot file from: > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.2/amd64/ > > and put it on my TFTP/DHCP server but when I boot this specific files > I get the installer for OpenBSD 5.1 and not 5.2. Is this intentional? Not even unintentional. > or am I doing something wrong here? yeah, you are doing something wrong. The files your TFTP server is serving is not the files you think you downloaded. To prove it to yourself, assuming your TFTP server is the same platform you are trying to install, do a "config -ef bsd.rd", it will show you the header of the file you think you are making available. If that says "5.1", you didn't download what you think you did. If it says 5.2, you aren't serving what you think you are serving (i.e., your tftp server isn't configured like you think it is). Nick.
Re: Installing 5.2 with PXE
Ah, you are right! It is indeed the RAMDISK for OpenBSD 5.2... I was using symlinks on my TFTP server to point to the latest version of OpenBSD but it looks like that somehow, although I changed the symlink to the latest version (5.2 directory) TFTP was still serving the old symbolink link to the old 5.1 directory. Really weird but at least now I know. Thanks for the help! From: Nick Holland To: misc@openbsd.org Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:20 PM Subject: Re: Installing 5.2 with PXE On 12/09/12 11:17, ML mail wrote: > Hi, > > I want to install OpenBSD 5.2 amd64 with PXE so I downloaded the > latest bsd.rd and pxeboot file from: > > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/5.2/amd64/ > > and put it on my TFTP/DHCP server but when I boot this specific files > I get the installer for OpenBSD 5.1 and not 5.2. Is this intentional? Not even unintentional. > or am I doing something wrong here? yeah, you are doing something wrong. The files your TFTP server is serving is not the files you think you downloaded. To prove it to yourself, assuming your TFTP server is the same platform you are trying to install, do a "config -ef bsd.rd", it will show you the header of the file you think you are making available. If that says "5.1", you didn't download what you think you did. If it says 5.2, you aren't serving what you think you are serving (i.e., your tftp server isn't configured like you think it is). Nick.
