Re: autoconf update patches

At Wed, 18 May 2005 02:02:26 +0200, Alfred M Szmidt wrote: > > Can we _please_ apply the patches for updating all the related > autoconf code right now? Cans omebody please do the bootstrap test? What's the problem with just testing the one potentially problematic scenario? > The worst case sce

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

> If listen has been called, then connections should complete, local > ones should complete instantly. Not when the queue limit has already been reached, right? ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: autoconf update patches

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can we _please_ apply the patches for updating all the related > autoconf code right now? > > The worst case scenario that will happen is that we won't be able to > bootstrap, and if that actually would happen then we have two choices, > revert or f

Re: autoconf update patches

What kind of bootstrapping are you talking about anyway? Please see previous threads in the archive about this. If someone expects something won't work, we can test it. And then expect that nobody actually does the test? Right ___ Bug-hurd

(no subject)

___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending >> acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a >> socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. > > This is doubly wrong. When listen has been called and the queue lim

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't understand. The connection is "actually" made when you call > connect. POSIX says[1]: > > If the initiating socket is connection-mode, then connect() shall > attempt to establish a connection to the address specified by the > address

Re: breaking out of a chroot

"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not suggesting that we should fix Unix's chroot with our chroot. > However, there are a fair number of programs (namely daemons) which > understand the security holes and are able, nevertheless, to take > advantages of Unix's chroot behavior. T

Re: breaking out of a chroot

> > I don't have any ideas offhand of how this could be fixed. > > It's easier than that; you can just directly ask the proc server for > the global system root. One can proxy the proc server. > The Hurd doesn't have Unixy chroots by design, but you can make a > subhurd which you can't break out

Re: breaking out of a chroot

At Wed, 18 May 2005 00:23:11 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > >Breaking out of a chroot on the Hurd is trivial: just use a passive >translator. > > I couldn't reproduce this... > > Script started on Wed May 18 06:19:32 2005 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cd chroot > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/chroot$ i

Re: buglet in pflocal/sock.c

At Tue, 17 May 2005 21:49:21 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath wrote: > Looks right. I've checked this in. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

At Tue, 17 May 2005 19:05:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > "Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending > > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a > > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBL

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

At Tue, 17 May 2005 22:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Roland McGrath wrote: > > > If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending > > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a > > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. > > This is doubly wrong. When listen has be

[EMAIL PROTECTED](BDevotion$B!j(B

$B'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$'T'$(B $B'T!!'T(B $B'$F|K\:GBg5iEPO?!JL5NA!K%(%s%H%j!http://www.lovegal2.net?free1000 $B'T(B $B'$",@lMQF~8}",!!'$(B $B!!

Re: breaking out of a chroot

"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Breaking out of a chroot on the Hurd is trivial: just use a passive > translator. A passive translator will inherit the namespace of the > file system which started it, not the process which set it. Thus, a > chroot'ed user need only run: > > se

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. This is doubly wrong. When listen has been called and the queue limit not reached, then the connection should be esta

Re: buglet in pflocal/sock.c

Looks right. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: breaking out of a chroot

Breaking out of a chroot on the Hurd is trivial: just use a passive translator. I couldn't reproduce this... Script started on Wed May 18 06:19:32 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cd chroot [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/chroot$ ids effective uids: 1002(ams) effective gids: 1002(ams) available uids: 1002(ams

Re: non-blocking connect fails with no pending acceptors

"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. It is unclear to me if this > behavior is POSIX-conforming or not [1],

IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Transparenz ist das Mindeste From:bug-hurd@gnu.org Date:Wed, 18 May 2005 02:06:39 GMT Your message has NOT been distributed to the list; before we distribute it, we need your permi

IMPORTANT: your message to png-group

This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Transparenz ist das Mindeste From:bug-hurd@gnu.org Date:Wed, 18 May 2005 02:06:39 GMT Your message has NOT been distributed to the list; before we distribute it, we need your permi

3.25 rate confirmation #835496JA Wed, 18 May 2005 09:49:23 -0800

Hello, We sent you an email a while ago, because you now qualify for a much lower rate based on the biggest rate drop in years. You can now get $327,000 for as little as $617 a month! Bad credit? Doesn't matter, ^low rates are fixed no matter what! Follow this link to process your application an

[patch #1809] Fix small typo in ext2_fs.h

Update of patch #1809 (project hurd): Priority: 5 - Normal => 1 - Later ___ Reply to this item at: __

autoconf update patches

Can we _please_ apply the patches for updating all the related autoconf code right now? The worst case scenario that will happen is that we won't be able to bootstrap, and if that actually would happen then we have two choices, revert or fix; both which are trivial. _

Ponga su anuncio de forma gratuita

  Tuanunciogratis   ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd