Hi,
I have been using reiserfs on top of an encrypted filesystem (serpent) for a
couple of months with no problems until last night when the reiserfs crashed.
This brings me to my question. Is it possible to burn this filesystem onto a
CDR.
I have tried unsuccessfully both by using the encrypted
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:50:56AM +0400, Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Tim van Erven wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > > > Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
> > > >
> > > > Only if strlen(name) = 0 and besides from
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Tim van Erven wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
> > >
> > > Only if strlen(name) = 0 and besides from being hard to achieve when
> > > entering data on stdin, fgets will return 0 if that happens.
> >
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > > int main()
> > > >
> > > > int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
> >
> > The
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > > int main()
> > > >
> > > > int main(void) /* () != (void)
On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > int main()
> > >
> > > int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
>
> The comp.lang.c faq (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/) says it's ok.
Where does
Whoa! Amazing :) This is exactly the sort of feedback I expected, thanks a
lot guys! I don't have trouble understanding your suggersions, my main
delight comes from wondering how on earth can you think of so many tiny
details :) And I thought I was paraonid :)
Really, thanks a lot, that taught me q
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:50:56AM +0400, Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Tim van Erven wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > > > Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
> > > >
> > > > Only if strlen(name) = 0 and besides from
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:34:28PM +0200, Tim van Erven wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
> > >
> > > Only if strlen(name) = 0 and besides from being hard to achieve when
> > > entering data on stdin, fgets will return 0 if that happens.
> >
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:02:10PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
[snip]
> I'd still argue that exit(_macro_) is better style than return from
> main(), but I'm hard pressed to find a technical argument.
>
There's subtle difference between returning from main and calling exit.
Excelent explanatio
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > > int main()
> > > >
> > > > int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
> >
> > The
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:10:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > > int main()
> > > >
> > > > int main(void) /* () != (void)
On 13-Jun-01, 11:24 (CDT), Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > if(name[strlen(name) - 1] != '\n') {
> >
>
> Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
Oops, didn't catch that one.
> > > /* return 0; */
> >
> > exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); /* return does
Thanks for the feedback, I'll respond to both your replies at once.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0400, Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
> >
> > On 12-Jun-01, 1
On 13-Jun-01, 13:47 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > int main()
> > >
> > > int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
>
> The comp.lang.c faq (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/) says it's ok.
Where doe
Whoa! Amazing :) This is exactly the sort of feedback I expected, thanks a
lot guys! I don't have trouble understanding your suggersions, my main
delight comes from wondering how on earth can you think of so many tiny
details :) And I thought I was paraonid :)
Really, thanks a lot, that taught me
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:02:10PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
[snip]
> I'd still argue that exit(_macro_) is better style than return from
> main(), but I'm hard pressed to find a technical argument.
>
There's subtle difference between returning from main and calling exit.
Excelent explanati
On 13-Jun-01, 11:24 (CDT), Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > if(name[strlen(name) - 1] != '\n') {
> >
>
> Possible access to unallocated memory if "\0\n" supplied as input.
Oops, didn't catch that one.
> > > /* return 0; */
> >
> > exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); /* return doe
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
>
> On 12-Jun-01, 17:57 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #include
>
> #include /* For execlp */
> #include /* For exit */
>
> > int main()
>
> int main(void
Thanks for the feedback, I'll respond to both your replies at once.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0400, Daniel Ginsburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
> >
> > On 12-Jun-01, 1
Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
On 12-Jun-01, 17:57 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
#include /* For execlp */
#include /* For exit */
> int main()
int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
> {
> charname[21]; /* Should be macro (#define
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:57:08AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
>
> On 12-Jun-01, 17:57 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #include
>
> #include /* For execlp */
> #include /* For exit */
>
> > int main()
>
> int main(voi
Tim, good fixups, a few C coding/style nitpicks:
On 12-Jun-01, 17:57 (CDT), Tim van Erven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
#include /* For execlp */
#include /* For exit */
> int main()
int main(void) /* () != (void) in C */
> {
> charname[21]; /* Should be macro (#define
Miquel Mart?n L?pez escribió:
>
> Hi all!
> We have several vt-100 terminal that log to the naub server at our office.
> Still, some users without account in the main server would like to login to
> another machine, so I was planning on creating a passwordless acount with a
> shell that's a progra
Craig wrote:
>
> Goodday ladies and fellas
>
> I have potato installed on a box that will be a proxy and firewall. I needed
> to have the facility of port forwarding so i was told to install kernel 2.4.
>
Does kernel 2.4 have some special feature of port forwarding that the
2.2.x kernels don'
Ethan Benson wrote:
> security.debian.org is only for stable, it won't work on woody or
> unstable since they almost invariably have newer versions then what
> goes in security.debian.org. the fact you have so far seen good
> results with security is mostly chance. if a security fix has some
> de
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:35:29AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > What is the security link?
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
>
> note that says stable. there is no security l
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> What is the security link?
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
note that says stable. there is no security link for woody/testing or
unstable. they do not get security updates from th
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates
> > > all
> > > the time, takes
> > > to much time to keep track
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:11:00PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Stefan Srdic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, as you can guess I am using netfilter for firewalling.
> >
> > How can I pipe all logs from Netfilter into a single logfile?
> >
> > Lets say I wanted all log messages from netfil
Miquel Mart?n L?pez escribió:
>
> Hi all!
> We have several vt-100 terminal that log to the naub server at our office.
> Still, some users without account in the main server would like to login to
> another machine, so I was planning on creating a passwordless acount with a
> shell that's a progr
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
>
> ...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all
> security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so
> i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i
> have also the security
Craig wrote:
>
> Goodday ladies and fellas
>
> I have potato installed on a box that will be a proxy and firewall. I needed
> to have the facility of port forwarding so i was told to install kernel 2.4.
>
Does kernel 2.4 have some special feature of port forwarding that the
2.2.x kernels don
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > the time, takes
> > to much time to keep track of everything imho.
>
> woody also does not get security updates, in fact it c
Ethan Benson wrote:
> security.debian.org is only for stable, it won't work on woody or
> unstable since they almost invariably have newer versions then what
> goes in security.debian.org. the fact you have so far seen good
> results with security is mostly chance. if a security fix has some
> d
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:35:29AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > What is the security link?
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
>
> note that says stable. there is no security
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
as Giacomo already mailed, you have the possibility to use Adrian's
packages from people.debian.org/~bunk/debian. But I had several
problems with them using isdn and proxy, etc.
I have woody installed on my router/firewall/proxy/fax-server. It'
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> the time, takes
> to much time to keep track of everything imho.
woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very
long time for securi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> What is the security link?
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
note that says stable. there is no security link for woody/testing or
unstable. they do not get security updates from t
Hi Craig,
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a proxy/firewall machine
...no prob at all, woody is nearly stable and i use it since half a year
without any probs as a firewall/squid-proxy and as a productive system
(intranet-server) for 20 users. for sure these are two different
Title: RE: Kernel 2.4 SOS
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a
> proxy/firewall machine
Just take the packages you need to run 2.4-kernel from woody and continue use potato.
That's what i do, works perfect.
And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packe
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:48:22AM +0200, Craig wrote:
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a proxy/firewall machine
I do not know the answer to this as I haven't really used woody yet.
But, the stuff you need to make it work smoothly on a potato box can be
found starting from her
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Craig wrote:
> I have the source downloaded and am busy going though the
> documentation but some of the packages that the documentation makes
> reference to is to low a version.
You don't need to install a full woody system to run a 2.4.x kernel. I
administer a large number
Goodday ladies and fellas
I have potato installed on a box that will be a proxy and firewall. I needed
to have the facility of port forwarding so i was told to install kernel 2.4.
I have the source downloaded and am busy going though the documentation but
some
of the packages that the documentati
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > > the time, takes
> > > to much time to keep track of ev
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:11:00PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Stefan Srdic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, as you can guess I am using netfilter for firewalling.
> >
> > How can I pipe all logs from Netfilter into a single logfile?
> >
> > Lets say I wanted all log messages from netfi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
>
> ...this is a thing where i can't agree, in the last 6 month, all
> security-fixes were as soon implemented as in potato (i have both, so
> i'd compared). e.g. bind probs, man-db probs for mention a few. but i
> have also the securit
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > the time, takes
> > to much time to keep track of everything imho.
>
> woody also does not get security updates, in fact it
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 09:01:59AM +0200, Physicman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've also encountered this problem when running a ps after recompiling a
> brand new kernel. Apparently, ps (and probably other applications) try
> to fetch the System.map in / so if you just symlink it to the new
> System.map
Hi,
I've also encountered this problem when running a ps after recompiling a
brand new kernel. Apparently, ps (and probably other applications) try
to fetch the System.map in / so if you just symlink it to the new
System.map file it should solve the issue.
Regards,
Chris
Alexander Konovale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
as Giacomo already mailed, you have the possibility to use Adrian's
packages from people.debian.org/~bunk/debian. But I had several
problems with them using isdn and proxy, etc.
I have woody installed on my router/firewall/proxy/fax-server. It
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> the time, takes
> to much time to keep track of everything imho.
woody also does not get security updates, in fact it can take a very
long time for secur
Hi Craig,
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a proxy/firewall machine
...no prob at all, woody is nearly stable and i use it since half a year
without any probs as a firewall/squid-proxy and as a productive system
(intranet-server) for 20 users. for sure these are two differen
Title: RE: Kernel 2.4 SOS
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a
> proxy/firewall machine
Just take the packages you need to run 2.4-kernel from woody and continue use potato.
That's what i do, works perfect.
And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packe
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 10:48:22AM +0200, Craig wrote:
> Now what i need to know, is woody stable enough for a proxy/firewall machine
I do not know the answer to this as I haven't really used woody yet.
But, the stuff you need to make it work smoothly on a potato box can be
found starting from he
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Craig wrote:
> I have the source downloaded and am busy going though the
> documentation but some of the packages that the documentation makes
> reference to is to low a version.
You don't need to install a full woody system to run a 2.4.x kernel. I
administer a large number
Goodday ladies and fellas
I have potato installed on a box that will be a proxy and firewall. I needed
to have the facility of port forwarding so i was told to install kernel 2.4.
I have the source downloaded and am busy going though the documentation but
some
of the packages that the documentat
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 09:01:59AM +0200, Physicman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've also encountered this problem when running a ps after recompiling a
> brand new kernel. Apparently, ps (and probably other applications) try
> to fetch the System.map in / so if you just symlink it to the new
> System.ma
58 matches
Mail list logo
