y
> for the voodoo 4 & 5, plus a few things in the headers have changed
> over time, which the DRI CVS tree seems to need.
It would be great to have a port for this stuff. I've had a Voodoo 3
card for a while, but never managed to get all the pieces right so
that OpenGL things would
le, then gets an I/O error. Same
with fixate (which also locks up the IDE busses).
I'm currently recompiling with ATAPI_DEBUG and ACD_DEBUG in the hopes
that I'll be able to produce a better bug report. Any suggestions?
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetM
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:37:34PM -0400, David E. Cross wrote:
> method isn't working. FreeBSD doesn't have a gethostname _system_ call, but
> it does have the gethostname() library call (which uses sysctl(2)). Any
> ideas how to get perl to use this?
Write a small xs modu
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:37:34PM -0400, David E. Cross wrote:
> method isn't working. FreeBSD doesn't have a gethostname _system_ call, but
> it does have the gethostname() library call (which uses sysctl(2)). Any
> ideas how to get perl to use this?
Write a small xs modu
cking" is intended to be. I never got to use MTS, but
Garance seems to be saying that certain files could be flagged
(perhaps this was the default) such that you can't access them at all
if you don't aquire a lock. Others are implying that a
"non-compliant" progra
cking" is intended to be. I never got to use MTS, but
Garance seems to be saying that certain files could be flagged
(perhaps this was the default) such that you can't access them at all
if you don't aquire a lock. Others are implying that a
"non-compliant" progra
king about means that if I can
get another user to read a file I own, I can make them block
indefinately. Maybe I can't do anything bad with that.. maybe I can
"only" cause a denial of service.. or maybe I can make a new race
condition in a periodic script.
By the way, I li
e talking about means that if I can
get another user to read a file I own, I can make them block
indefinately. Maybe I can't do anything bad with that.. maybe I can
"only" cause a denial of service.. or maybe I can make a new race
condition in a periodic script.
By the way, I like t
xamples.. if I
lock a bunch of files in my web space, does apache get a bunch of
children stuck forever? Who knows what might get tripped up?
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
ch...@netmonger.neti...@netmonger.nethttp://www.netmonger
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 11:16:21PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> > Bleah.. I can't count the number of times I've seen idiotic code like:
> >
> > open file
> > read data
> > close file
> &g
les are marked such that they can't be opened
without locking. That seems extremely dangerous, given all the time
that such a thing hasn't been around.. who knows how many scripts and
programs will now be vulnerable to hanging forever.. can I lock my
maildrop? My web pages? My print spool
xamples.. if I
lock a bunch of files in my web space, does apache get a bunch of
children stuck forever? Who knows what might get tripped up?
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.netmonger
cause
the kernel will take care of it for me."
Actually, I don't really understand the paradigm. Two processes need
to safely update a file, so one of them aquires a mandatory lock, and
the other.. uh.. just blocks trying to open the file? How does it
know it's not the first one?
--
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 11:16:21PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> > Bleah.. I can't count the number of times I've seen idiotic code like:
> >
> > open file
> > read data
> > close file
> &g
les are marked such that they can't be opened
without locking. That seems extremely dangerous, given all the time
that such a thing hasn't been around.. who knows how many scripts and
programs will now be vulnerable to hanging forever.. can I lock my
maildrop? My web pages? My print sp
cause
the kernel will take care of it for me."
Actually, I don't really understand the paradigm. Two processes need
to safely update a file, so one of them aquires a mandatory lock, and
the other.. uh.. just blocks trying to open the file? How does it
know it's not the first one?
-
ount it through
umap is an interesting approach, although last time I touched
mount_umap it easily panicked my machine. It certainly seems better
than hacking the kernel directly (an approach which the other BSDs
will be less keen to accept).
Good luck with it.
--
Christopher Masto
ount it through
umap is an interesting approach, although last time I touched
mount_umap it easily panicked my machine. It certainly seems better
than hacking the kernel directly (an approach which the other BSDs
will be less keen to accept).
Good luck with it.
--
Christopher Ma
en it becomes possible
for me to do so.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
ch...@netmonger.neti...@netmonger.nethttp://www.netmonger.net
Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to m
en it becomes possible
for me to do so.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.netmonger.net
Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAI
feature of level 1.
It seems to be that disabling bpf is more appropriate for security
level 2 and up, if such a thing is desirable. I'm not sure it is.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
ch...@netmonger.neti...@netmonger.netht
x27;t be turned off" feature of level 1.
It seems to be that disabling bpf is more appropriate for security
level 2 and up, if such a thing is desirable. I'm not sure it is.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EM
22 matches
Mail list logo
