On 4/01/2018 11:51 AM, Mark Heily wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2018 19:05, "Warner Losh" wrote:
>
> The register article says the specifics are under embargo still. That would
> make it hard for anybody working with Intel to comment publicly on the flaw
> and any mitigations that may be underway. It would b
On 30/07/2014 2:54 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> ...
> I would hope that is not the case. While NAT66 is "well known" and has been
> a topic of discussion for years, NPT66 is relatively new. It does share
> many concepts with NAT66 (and, most likely implementations also share
> code), but does not req
On 29/07/2014 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
> And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence
> of your choosing) on sight!
For the most part, I agree with you but the problem is "checkbox"
comparisons. That IPv6 shouldn't be NAT'd is why I didn't implement
it for such a lo
On 27/07/2014 4:43 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> In message <53d395e4.1070...@fastmail.net>, Darren Reed writes:
>> On 24/07/2014 1:42 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
>>>>> But, lack of ipv6 fragment processing still causes ongoing pain. That'=
>>>>> s our=20
&
On 24/07/2014 1:42 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
>>>
>>> But, lack of ipv6 fragment processing still causes ongoing pain. That'=
>>> s our=20
>>> #1 wish list item for the cluster.
> Taking this discussion slightly sideways but touching on this thread a
> little, each of our packet filters will need nat
On 21/07/2014 5:14 AM, Eric Masson wrote:
> krad writes:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been mentioned
>> in this thread.
> It would be nice but as it's been written in this thread, Open & Free
> internals are quite different beasts, goals are different on both
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
...
> No, userland tools should be placed in bin|sbin|usr.bin|usr.sbin,
> according to the place where they are installed. An exlusion can be made
> adding a intermediate subdir (like this is already done for ipfilter
> tools),
> to group all r
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> I think the main distinction here is whether the adaptions to
> FreeBSD are kept local (resulting in almost a fork) or are fed
> upstream so that successive updates require less or no local
> changes.
>
> Having the kernel part in sys/netp
I'm NOT using FreeBSD because it doesn't ship with /bin/ksh.
WTF?!
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On 24/08/2010 4:56 AM, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I have made a new snapshot of the svn repo which can be used to start new
> FreeBSD svn mirrors.
>
> Hopefully I made it the right way, but... let me know if there are any issues.
>
> Since the original snapshot was made by peter the
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Oct-13 22:59:39 +, Darren Reed wrote:
As another body that today bought a 2TB HDD, I can confirm the presence
of kernel messages relating to READ_DMA48 with FreeBSD 8.
The drive in question is a Hitachi one, not a Samsung.
Is it the drive, system or
As another body that today bought a 2TB HDD, I can confirm the presence
of kernel messages relating to READ_DMA48 with FreeBSD 8.
The drive in question is a Hitachi one, not a Samsung.
Is it the drive, system or operating system?
Well, the drive works without any such error with both Windows 7 a
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
[...]
> The original posting in this thread gave a patch to unconditionalize
> the PFIL_HOOKS thing, so that the ipfilter module could load on a
> default kernel, without having to do a reasonable amount of work.
ipfilter being the only code
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
> Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
> > > I'm really not a fan of "NO_PFIL_HOOKS" as an option.
> >
> > I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but "options PFIL_HOOKS" in GENERIC.
> > Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STAB
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
> Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
> > Darren states that PFIL code was derived from NetBSD so there are no
> > licensing issues.
>
> This is Darren Reed's "ipfilter.c" code, which he will not allow
> to be distributed modified, and so Theo got all up
In some email I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote:
> Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
> > Unfortunately nobody cares to look into PR database (conf/44576)
> >
> > In case PFIL_HOOKS really slows IP processing I don't mind keeping this
> > out of GENERIC, however it should be noted in UPDATING and rele
In some email I received from Doug Barton, sie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > I tested this on i386 only with 2 days old -CURRENT (today's is
> > broken due to the import of latest IPFilter suite)
>
> I updated to the latest and greatest last night around midnigh
In some email I received from Bruce Evans, sie wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> > Using ktrace ref5, I created ~darrenr/ktrace.out with "ktrace -i cc ..."
> > but trying to print it I get:
> > % kdump -f ~/ktrace.out > lout
> > kdu
Using ktrace ref5, I created ~darrenr/ktrace.out with "ktrace -i cc ..."
but trying to print it I get:
% kdump -f ~/ktrace.out > lout
kdump: Cannot allocate memory
Is this stack corruption by kdump? ref5:~darrenr/ktrace.out is available
for anyone who wants to diagnose this further.
FYI:
% lim
Distribution: ipfilter list, FreeBSD & NetBSD developers & current lists.
There is some amount of angst in the user community about what the IPFilter
licence means. This has prompted some rather rash discussions and actions.
Nevertheless, what I'd been led to think was bad (the old licence) isn'
well, I got as far as importing ipfilter 3.4.16 into -current before I
realised that ref5 is not working properly (again) or for some reason
it just doesn't know about the ssh files that freefall does so if I
just broke -current, I'm sorry but if I could have done a test compile
on a 5.x box I wo
In some email I received from Bruce Evans, sie wrote:
[...]
> Your is apparently out of date. With all those -I
> paths, it is hard to tell where includes are found. The
> -I${.CURDIR}/../../sys hack is particularly evil. It makes no difference
> for "make world", but for plain make it causes
IP Filter doesn't introduce a "struct mtx" which suggests something isn't
protecting against multiple inclusions or similar ?
Darren
(ref5:~/freebsd/src/usr.sbin/ipftest) make
Warning: Object directory not changed from original
/d/home/darrenr/freebsd/src/usr.sbin/ipftest
cc -O -pipe -DIPL_NAM
Apart from the config(8) issue, I see this building GENERIC:
cc -c -O -pipe -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -fformat-extensions -ansi
-nostdinc -I- -I. -I../.. -I/usr/include -I../../contrib/dev/acpica/Sub
In some email I received from David O'Brien, sie wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:43:04AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darren Reed writes
> > :
> > >What failed ? Do you have the make error output ?
> > Did you
What failed ? Do you have the make error output ?
Darren
In some email I received from Doug Barton, sie wrote:
> With tonight's sources I had an error in sys/netinet/ip_compat.h that
> was looking for an osreldate.h that didn't exist. The following patch
> fixes it, in the sense that the
valon@localhost)
> by cairo.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06842;
> Sun, 13 Aug 2000 15:15:22 +1000 (EST)
> From: Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: ipfilter 3.4.9 imported
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTE
Greetings,
I've updated IP Filter in the FreeBSD-current sources to
Version 3.4.4 (which isn't yet released, now that I think about it :*)
I would apprecate some feedback from people who are able to run and
test this so its suitability for importing onto the 4.0_STABLE branch
can be det
In some email I received from Greg Lehey, sie wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 May 2000 at 23:21:21 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:23:07PM -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >>
> > Maybe the comitters ought to take an idea from many software companies and
> > contribute $5 t
In some email I received from Greg Lehey, sie wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 May 2000 at 9:53:40 -0700, Brian W. Buchanan wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 May 2000, Stephen Hocking wrote:
> >
> >> For the past few days, current has not compiled, owing to problems (in no
> >> particular order) with more, vinum and
In some email I received from Poul-Henning Kamp, sie wrote:
[...]
> In the meantime please enjoy:
>
> NTFS filesytem
>
> Netware support
>
> Jail facility
>
> Tons of new device drivers
>
> Netgraph
>
> etc, etc
>
> Isn't that just that very incomplete li
In some email I received from Warner Losh, sie wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Josef Karthauser writes:
> : My 3c589d works just fine now, along with suspend/resume :) (under 4.0).
>
> The issue with the 3c589d is with its speed. It is falling back to
> the timeout routine to send da
In some email I received from Randy Bush, sie wrote:
>
> > 4.0-RELEASE sounds like it will start becoming available at about the same
> > time as other OS's make new releases *with* IPv6/IPSec. You work it out
> > whether or not FreeBSD will win or lose from those two being there or not
> > ther
In some email I received from Matthew Dillon, sie wrote:
[...]
> We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
> but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
> is not too late for these babies.
[...]
Well, let me put it this way.
In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
>
> *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to release and ship a
> 4.0-beta?
In some email I received from Yoshinobu Inoue, sie wrote:
>
> > Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> > the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> > some applications.
> >
> > louie
>
> As an information from a person doi
Well, if someone had of answered my question (to cvs-committers)
about getting an account fixed up on freefall(?) so I could use
cvs again, it might not have been forgotten about for quite so
long. Maybe I sent the question to the "wrong place", but I
received no answer to even indicate that! hm
In some email I received from Poul-Henning Kamp, sie wrote:
>
>
> We have now come so far that we can start to kill cdevsw_add()
> calls and rely on make_dev() for most of the device drivers.
[...]
Is that make_dev() meant to make makedev() or is that a part of the
transition you're helping alo
38 matches
Mail list logo
