https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248628
Rajeev Pillai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rajeev_v_pil...@yahoo.com
--- Comm
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250452
Bug ID: 250452
Summary: FreeBSD-12.2-RC3/amd64: /etc/resolv.conf is always
reset by resolvconf even when it is disabled
Product: Base System
Version: Unspecified
Hard
___
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-bugs-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250452
Bob Bishop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||r...@gid.co.uk
--- Comment #1 from Bo
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250361
--- Comment #8 from Olef ---
Hi,
Thanks, though I did not receive the panic this morning after upgrading to
12.2, will check again tomorrow. If this fault still persists I'll patch in
your suggestion.
I needed to increase SEMUME as some p
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250453
Bug ID: 250453
Summary: jexe does not set the fib of a jail
Product: Base System
Version: 12.1-RELEASE
Hardware: amd64
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
Bug ID: 250454
Summary: PT_GETFPREGS on i386 oversimplifies translating FPU
Tag Word
Product: Base System
Version: Unspecified
Hardware: i386
OS: Any
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
--- Comment #1 from Michał Górny ---
Created attachment 218882
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=218882&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here's a patch based on the similar problem fixed on NetBSD.
Without the patch, the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Belousov ---
It was deliberate decision when I did r320308.
Can you explain why more precise translation from abridged to compat tags is
important ? Reasoning for not doing it was that Intel was fine with su
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
Bug ID: 250455
Summary: General protection fault when booting 12.1 via
qemu/i386 with -enable-kvm -cpu max
Product: Base System
Version: 12.1-RELEASE
Hardware: i386
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250452
--- Comment #2 from Rajeev Pillai ---
Spell worked. Close bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250361
--- Comment #9 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to Olef from comment #8)
I am quite sure that there is the issue I described in the review, and since it
is a memory corruption kind of bug, it is quite specific to the kernel/machine/
l
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
--- Comment #3 from Michał Górny ---
> Can you explain why more precise translation from abridged to compat tags is
> important ? Reasoning for not doing it was that Intel was fine with such
> limited reporting in HW, so why we should care
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
Michał Górny changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #218882|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250454
Michał Górny changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://reviews.freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
--- Comment #1 from Michał Górny ---
FWICS the issue doesn't happen on master anymore but it does happen on
releng/12.1 branch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250459
Bug ID: 250459
Summary: rtsold missing option to set fib
Product: Base System
Version: 12.1-RELEASE
Hardware: amd64
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity: Af
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250361
--- Comment #10 from Olef ---
I will, would it also manifest itself in 12.2 or shall I create a new VM ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bug
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250361
--- Comment #11 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to Olef from comment #10)
The issue that patch fixes is in HEAD, stable/12, and all 12.x releases.
But since it is memory corruption, specific manifestation of it can be
arbitrary, for
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180328
JaniePelayo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||syzo...@getnada.com
--- Comment #6 f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
Ed Maste changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ema...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
--- Comment #3 from Michał Górny ---
FreeBSD-12.2-RC3-i386-bootonly.iso fails the same way.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250405
Ed Maste changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ema...@freebsd.org
Status|N
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250405
--- Comment #6 from Ed Maste ---
The examples in the man page try to make the distinction clear:
> In this example, -c is passed to the shell of the user "operator", and is not
> interpreted as an argument to su.
> (Most shells expect th
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
--- Comment #4 from Michał Górny ---
I'm going to try a reverse-bisect.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list
https:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250405
--- Comment #7 from Ed Maste ---
I'll accept that there's clearly still an opportunity for confusion here (as
demonstrated by the existence of this PR). That said, the issue is described in
each of the three examples that have a `-c` argume
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250405
--- Comment #8 from Zsolt Udvari ---
I was inattentive when didn't read (the perfect) explanation in examples.
Maybe only one sentence in "-c":
Note it's possible to run a command inside invoked shell usually with shell(!)
option "-c". See
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241848
--- Comment #20 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to Mark Millard from comment #19)
Looks like head -r366850 will make parallel build activity while
gmock-matchers_test.cc is building more likely, causing increased
peak-attempted memory use
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241848
Dimitry Andric changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arichard...@freebsd.org
--- Comme
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241848
--- Comment #22 from Alex Richardson ---
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D26067 may also be of interest as it stops building
this test by default.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250455
--- Comment #5 from Michał Górny ---
I've been able to go back as far as to a93b5bbe069508aa0f8973501712d9c3664fc683
(2019-12-06) and reproduce the new (i.e. working) behavior. My next stop ended
up to be incompatible with userland, so I'l
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180328
BereniceRobertson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||no...@getnada.com
--- Comment
32 matches
Mail list logo
