Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

Well, I'd like to offer help keeping it (because on a personal opinion, I'd like being compatible `:-D). But the reasons are pretty reasonable and convincing :-). I have no more objections against removing it when security risks involves. -- Best wishes, MMokhi. ___

Re: removing SVR4 binary compatibilty layer

Hi, Is this removing is because no-interest on maintaining it? If it helps, I am working to use the `kern_* instead sys_*` as mentioned patch in that discussion suggests for svr4, if this helps. -- Best wishes, MMokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org

Re: Is there possible run a MacOS X binary

irst, Apple+Law issues, etc). Best wishes, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is there possible run a MacOS X binary

rograms with it :) Best regards, Mokhi. == [1] https://github.com/m0khi/FreeBSD_MachO ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to &

Re: WITNESS messages on 11

il/freebsd-current/2016-May/061195.html [2]https://www.freebsd.org/doc/faq/troubleshoot.html#idp63374416 Best Regards, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail t

Re: Lock order reversal errors during boot

I see this LOR often too. I thought maybe this is happening because of my Virtual Box setting :) (?!?) On 5/21/16, Will Brokenbourgh wrote: > On 05/16/16 00:44, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>> On 15 May 2016, at 07:44 , Kurt Jaeger wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> I am seeing 'lock order reversal' errors d

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

Hi again. I've implemented FatElf support for Elf image activator too[1] :) Any comments/reviews on this ? I also pinged Ryan Gordon about this. Also im curious to know if any comments/reviews are done on MachO implementation[2] Best wishes and thousands of regards,

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

errr, typo ... s/an FatELF both/and FatELF both/g :) On 3/25/16, mokhi wrote: > Adrian, thanks for your +1 :P > > So, what about EULA related things that 'David' pointed to? > If this isn't really a big problem, I have no problem to continue on >

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

Adrian, thanks for your +1 :P So, what about EULA related things that 'David' pointed to? If this isn't really a big problem, I have no problem to continue on working on it, an FatELF both ;) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.fre

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

So, I'll try to port FatELF as well as MachO. Choosing the better one is up to you ;) All opinions/idea are welcome and I appreciate. Best wishes, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

On 3/24/16, mokhi wrote: > Then you think the better idea is porting FatELF to FreeBSD, rather > than working on MachO? > If yes, I am ready to put dedicated time on it :) [as I did for MachO] But before that, you think, is there any changes we can/should make on it? * I read someth

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

Then you think the better idea is porting FatELF to FreeBSD, rather than working on MachO? ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr..

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

n happy vacation ;) Thanks and thousands of regards, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

t we need this image activator, what's your opinion about it? BTW, in brief I believe we can have strategies to do (sub plans) and it worth (at least for me, because I'll learn good things). What's your opinion? Best wishes, Mokhi. ___

FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it.

Hi guys. I'm Mahdi Mokhtari (aka Mokhi between FreeBSD friends). I am working on adding Mach-O binary format to supported formats for FreeBSD. Not for emulations on first step, but as a native supported format just like a.out [or Elf] (though it can go in both ways too). There are good re

Re: thread-unsafety problems as spl*() ones are NOP

question too :D Regards, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: thread-unsafety problems as spl*() ones are NOP

@imp So you think I should start to put locks there and see what happens? :) ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: thread-unsafety problems as spl*() ones are NOP

So in your opinion I shouldn't put mutex/spin/lock/unlock under splitty/splx? Can you please explain a bit more about MPSAFE using for me too? Regards, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis

Re: thread-unsafety problems as spl*() ones are NOP

i currently only wanna do patch on kbd.c (because i'm sure there is a thread-unsafety) and i don't want to add anything to spltty() nor splx(), i just wanna add things under where they've been used. isn't problem with using mutex/spin/lock/unlock etc there? _

thread-unsafety problems as spl*() ones are NOP

-unsafely which leads to security problems (and/or for example double-free, etc) can i use mutex/spin/lock/unlock under where assumed a lock/unlock by using spltty()/splx() to patch it? Thanks, Mokhi. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https