Re: replacing grep(1)

John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > right now, I'm trying to think of a way to eliminate the fgetln searching > for end of line... of course this would eliminate some of the simplicity > of design, but we can get a BIG speed increase if we simply don't scan for > the new line unless we NEED to... and if

Re: Documenting writev(2) ENOBUFS error

> :w...@softweyr.com (Wes Peters) writes: > : > :> [ENOBUFS] Insufficient system buffer space exists to complete the > op- > :>eration. > : > :Do you know what kind of circumstances that error *really* occurs > :under? > : > :If it happened with files, that would be a

Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?

* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Look, we're obviously not going to convince each other with this discussion. I'm sorry I caused you much trouble by adding it without working it with you first, but I believe the current state is workable for both of us. Can we leave it as it is? * 2. Your INDEX

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > We got off onto a big tangent about switches and vlans and stuff and I > learned a number of interesting things, don't get me wrong, but we > still haven't established any consensus on the trade-offs of enabling > bpf. This wasn't meant to be a hypothetical discussi

Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Hello! I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and change password via (SSLed) web interface. So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd. I have a hack that requires to change libc t

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <37a25361.34799...@bellatlantic.net> Sergey Babkin writes: > : Disabling bpf it will break rarpd (and also rbootd but it is less > : important). I think such a thing should be mentioned in documentation. > > Not if they are started before the secure level is rais

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > Hello! > > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd. > >

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

<37a30852.20e5a...@bellatlantic.net>Sergey Babkin writes: >> Any suggestions, anyone? > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. And modify sendmail to throw off mail for nonexistent users?

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Alex Povolotsky wrote: > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd

Re: DOC volunteer WAS:RE: userfs help needed.

[ cc'd to -doc, reply-to points there ] On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:09:20PM -0500, Alton, Matthew wrote: > I prefer to work in flat ASCII. Perhaps the doc project can HTMLize > the final product. We can, it just takes longer, that's all. It would make life simpler if you can follow the general s

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > <37a30852.20e5a...@bellatlantic.net>Sergey Babkin writes: > >> Any suggestions, anyone? > > > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? > >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. > > And modify sendmail to

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > In message > "Brian F. Feldman" writes: > : And how about having > : if (securelevel > 3) > : return (EPERM); > : in bpf_open()? > > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is > consistant with

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote: > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in the rc files, before securelevel is raised. -- Ben UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group StarMedia Network, Inc. To Unsubs

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:17:44PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote: > > > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( > > I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in > the rc files, before securelevel is raised. AFAIK i

Re: No MAXUID ?

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me > that Mike Smith remarked > > > > I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning > > manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting

Re: bootloader....

[Cross-posted: replying to -hackers] > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/supp

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote: > > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( > > I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in > the rc files, before securelevel is raised. The isc dhcp server doesn't support a -SIGHUP reload, which would mean a

something wrong with malloc ?

Hi everybody, I received a letter from Cron daemon -- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:10:00 +0600 (ESS) From: root (Cron Daemon) To: root Subject: Cron /usr/libexec/atrun CRON in malloc(): warning: pointer to wrong page. -

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > In message > "Brian F. Feldman" writes: > : And how about having > : if (securelevel > 3) > : return (EPERM); > : in bpf_open()? > > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is > consistant with

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

I don't know if my previous send was successfull, so I will send again. MY apollogies if a copy of this email is already/has already been delivered. Alex, You may want to try the patches for qpopper (if this is what you're using) to connect to a MySQL db for this sort of stuff. If you don't like

Re: Is the _Device Driver Writers Guide_ still apropos?

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:48:47PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > * Nik Clayton (n...@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) [990730 23:37]: > > Is the FreeBSD Device Driver Writers Guide at > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/tutorials/ddwg/ddwg.html > > > > still correct? I know there have been

Re: No MAXUID ?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote: > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar > file. Eeeuw! :-) I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote: > I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions. Your questions are easier answered in reverse order: > and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every > single system call that uses it? The informati

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:46:26 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > If no-one objects I'll submit a manpage per a.out(5) style tomorrow > for review untill it's ready for inclusion. Anyone who objects to your submissions is a woes -- real bastards wait for you to do the work before shooting you

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:07:26 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex support to outperform GNU's simple regex support?

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote: > On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for > /etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for > the ports > 1023. Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers instead of service na

Re: No MAXUID ?

Mike Smith writes: > v2 NFS doesn't support UIDs > 65535, and UIDs around that number are > magic to it as well. There are serious security issues here (files > will appear to be owned by the wrong user). Hmm, isn't this a separate bug in itself (unrelated to pwd_mkdb)? Ie, somewhere in the ker

Re: No MAXUID ?

> > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar > > file. ... > While warnings and error messages should give me enough information > to address a problem efficiently (something on the wishlist of any > Wintendo administrator), once I know there is more than zero potentially

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

* Sheldon Hearn (sheld...@uunet.co.za) [990801 00:35]: > > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:46:26 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > > If no-one objects I'll submit a manpage per a.out(5) style tomorrow > > for review untill it's ready for inclusion. > > Anyone who objects to your submissions is

Re: Is the _Device Driver Writers Guide_ still apropos?

* Nik Clayton (n...@freebsd.org) [990801 00:35]: > How does the attached patch grab you? I think it perfect... Now to find the time to wrote the sucker ;) -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(at)wxs.nl The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1: > Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers > instead of service names? I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and I'm willing to

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <19990731193410.c18...@cicely8.cicely.de> Bernd Walter writes: : Maybe a set of sysctls with a switch to off only behavour would be a : better way. Actually, a better way would be to have the interfaces to the network stack that would handle this stuff w/o needing to resort to bpf. War

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <19990731154458.a2...@netmonger.net> Christopher Masto writes: : I hope you mean "> 1". I often diagnose problems using tcpdump etc., : and I don't think bpf should be broken just because someone wants the : minor "flags can't be turned off" feature of level 1. Flags can't be turned of

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <19990731190814.a18...@cicely8.cicely.de> Bernd Walter writes: : > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is : > consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". : That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( No. That would mean you'd have to start DHCP

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 11:56:16PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > > You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex > support to outperform GNU's simple

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Hi Alex, Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of > mail-only users. They should never access anything besides their > POP3 mailboxes and change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd. cuci

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Oh yeah, and check out the jail code (sections 2 and 4, I *think* -CURRENT only). - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Alex Povolotsky wrote: > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > <37a30852.20e5a...@bellatlantic.net>Sergey Babkin writes: > >> Any suggestions, anyone? > > > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? > >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. > > And modify sendmail to

Re: Documenting writev(2) ENOBUFS error

Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > > > :w...@softweyr.com (Wes Peters) writes: > > : > > :> [ENOBUFS] Insufficient system buffer space exists to complete > > the op- > > :>eration. > > : > > :Do you know what kind of circumstances that error *really* occurs > > :under? >

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > * Nik Clayton (n...@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) [990730 23:37]: > > Hi folks, > > > > We have an a.out(5), but no elf(5) (as pointed out in docs/7914). > > > > Does anyone feel up to writing one? > > Saw it before, noticed it, placed on my to-do list. If no-one

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > We got off onto a big tangent about switches and vlans and stuff and I > learned a number of interesting things, don't get me wrong, but we > still haven't established any consensus on the trade-offs of enabling > bpf. This wasn't meant to be a hypothetical discussi

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > > In that case, my argument changes to: > > "There's no good reason not to have bpf in the GENERIC kernel." > > And how about having > if (securelevel > 3) > return (EPERM); > in bpf_open()?

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <9518.933378...@zippy.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: > : > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is > : > consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". > : > : Would you be willing to make this change? > > Yes. I will make this

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :> consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". > : > :Disabling bpf it will break rarpd (and also rbootd but it is less > :important). I think such a thing should be mentioned in documentation. > : > :-SB > > Not if rarpd is started via the rc files... it would hoo

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <37a3b701.851df...@softweyr.com> Wes Peters writes: : Do we have a list of all services that use bpf? I'm willing to edit the man : pages, given a list. I guess I could just grep-o-matic here, huh? Yes. I'm also in a holding off pattern until we know the exact impact for all daemons

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > I rather hope that the rumoured newer version of H. Spencer's regex > lib is faster... Being as slow for that pattern as it is has got to > be a bug of some sort... It's actually faster to scan the file twice, > once for the first string and then for

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote: > > > I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions. > > Your questions are easier answered in reverse order: > > > and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every > > single sy

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote: > > > On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for > > /etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for > > the ports > 1023. > > Would you need these entries if inetd let you specif

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

In message <37a3e203.de0fe...@gorean.org>, Doug wrote: } Sheldon Hearn wrote: } > } > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote: } > } > > I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions. } > } > Your questions are easier answered in reverse order: } > } > > and how do

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Jon Hamilton wrote: > No. ipfw deals with /etc/services only at startup time (any other behavior on > its part would be ridiculous). That's not entirely true, there are other situations (like adding a rule, etc.) but your point is well taken. And no, I can't provide specific examples, m

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

In message <37a3e944.7f28e...@gorean.org>, Doug wrote: } Jon Hamilton wrote: } } > No. ipfw deals with /etc/services only at startup time (any other behavior } on } > its part would be ridiculous). } } That's not entirely true, there are other situations (like adding a rul } e, } etc.) b

Re: replacing grep(1)

John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > right now, I'm trying to think of a way to eliminate the fgetln searching > for end of line... of course this would eliminate some of the simplicity > of design, but we can get a BIG speed increase if we simply don't scan for > the new line unless we NEED to... and if

Re: Documenting writev(2) ENOBUFS error

> :[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wes Peters) writes: > : > :> [ENOBUFS] Insufficient system buffer space exists to complete the op- > :>eration. > : > :Do you know what kind of circumstances that error *really* occurs > :under? > : > :If it happened with files, that would be a b

Re: XFree 3.3.4 not on ftp.freebsd.org?

* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Look, we're obviously not going to convince each other with this discussion. I'm sorry I caused you much trouble by adding it without working it with you first, but I believe the current state is workable for both of us. Can we leave it as it is

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > We got off onto a big tangent about switches and vlans and stuff and I > learned a number of interesting things, don't get me wrong, but we > still haven't established any consensus on the trade-offs of enabling > bpf. This wasn't meant to be a hypothetical discuss

Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Hello! I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and change password via (SSLed) web interface. So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd. I have a hack that requires to change libc

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sergey Babkin writes: > : Disabling bpf it will break rarpd (and also rbootd but it is less > : important). I think such a thing should be mentioned in documentation. > > Not if they are started before the secure level is raised. A problem i

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > Hello! > > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passwd. > >

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sergey Babkin writes: >> Any suggestions, anyone? > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. And modify sendmail to throw off mail for nonexistent users? Alex. -- Alexan

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Alex Povolotsky wrote: > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passw

Re: DOC volunteer WAS:RE: userfs help needed.

[ cc'd to -doc, reply-to points there ] On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:09:20PM -0500, Alton, Matthew wrote: > I prefer to work in flat ASCII. Perhaps the doc project can HTMLize > the final product. We can, it just takes longer, that's all. It would make life simpler if you can follow the general

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sergey Babkin writes: > >> Any suggestions, anyone? > > > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? > >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. > > And modify sendmail to throw off mail

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Brian F. >Feldman" writes: > : And how about having > : if (securelevel > 3) > : return (EPERM); > : in bpf_open()? > > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This i

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote: > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in the rc files, before securelevel is raised. -- Ben UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group StarMedia Network, Inc. To Unsub

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:17:44PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote: > > > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( > > I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in > the rc files, before securelevel is raised. AFAIK

Re: No MAXUID ?

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me > that Mike Smith remarked > > > > I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning > > manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are gettin

Re: bootloader....

[Cross-posted: replying to -hackers] > I'm looking at booting(embedded devices) and I've been looking at lilo boot > loader code and booteasy bootloader code... > > does anyone know of any documentation that anyone out there has done on this > topic? -- more specifically without > bios calls/sup

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote: > > That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( > > I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in > the rc files, before securelevel is raised. The isc dhcp server doesn't support a -SIGHUP reload, which would mean

something wrong with malloc ?

Hi everybody, I received a letter from Cron daemon -- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:10:00 +0600 (ESS) From: root (Cron Daemon) To: root Subject: Cron /usr/libexec/atrun CRON in malloc(): warning: pointer to wrong page.

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Brian F. >Feldman" writes: > : And how about having > : if (securelevel > 3) > : return (EPERM); > : in bpf_open()? > > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This i

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

I don't know if my previous send was successfull, so I will send again. MY apollogies if a copy of this email is already/has already been delivered. Alex, You may want to try the patches for qpopper (if this is what you're using) to connect to a MySQL db for this sort of stuff. If you don't lik

Re: Is the _Device Driver Writers Guide_ still apropos?

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:48:47PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > * Nik Clayton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990730 23:37]: > > Is the FreeBSD Device Driver Writers Guide at > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/tutorials/ddwg/ddwg.html > > > > still correct? I know there have been changes to this

Re: No MAXUID ?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote: > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar > file. Eeeuw! :-) I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote: > I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions. Your questions are easier answered in reverse order: > and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every > single system call that uses it? The informat

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:46:26 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > If no-one objects I'll submit a manpage per a.out(5) style tomorrow > for review untill it's ready for inclusion. Anyone who objects to your submissions is a woes -- real bastards wait for you to do the work before shooting yo

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:07:26 -0400, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex support to outperform GNU's simple regex support?

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:18 MST, Doug wrote: > On some of the machines I administer I have some custom entries for > /etc/services that make more sense than the defaults, especially for > the ports > 1023. Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers instead of service n

Re: No MAXUID ?

Mike Smith writes: > v2 NFS doesn't support UIDs > 65535, and UIDs around that number are > magic to it as well. There are serious security issues here (files > will appear to be owned by the wrong user). Hmm, isn't this a separate bug in itself (unrelated to pwd_mkdb)? Ie, somewhere in the ke

Re: No MAXUID ?

> > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar > > file. ... > While warnings and error messages should give me enough information > to address a problem efficiently (something on the wishlist of any > Wintendo administrator), once I know there is more than zero potentiall

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

* Sheldon Hearn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990801 00:35]: > > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:46:26 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > > If no-one objects I'll submit a manpage per a.out(5) style tomorrow > > for review untill it's ready for inclusion. > > Anyone who objects to your submissions is a

Re: Is the _Device Driver Writers Guide_ still apropos?

* Nik Clayton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990801 00:35]: > How does the attached patch grab you? I think it perfect... Now to find the time to wrote the sucker ;) -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(at)wxs.nl The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Sheldon Hearn scribbled this message on Aug 1: > Would you need these entries if inetd let you specify port numbers > instead of service names? I vote for allowing inetd.conf to specify a port number instead of a service name... it should be very easy to make the modification, and I'm willing to

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bernd Walter writes: : Maybe a set of sysctls with a switch to off only behavour would be a : better way. Actually, a better way would be to have the interfaces to the network stack that would handle this stuff w/o needing to resort to bpf. Warner To Unsubscribe:

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Christopher Masto writes: : I hope you mean "> 1". I often diagnose problems using tcpdump etc., : and I don't think bpf should be broken just because someone wants the : minor "flags can't be turned off" feature of level 1. Flags can't be turned off at level 1, an

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bernd Walter writes: : > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is : > consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". : That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :( No. That would mean you'd have to start DHCP before raising the se

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 11:56:16PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > b$ time ./grep -E '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > > b$ time grep '(vt100)|(printer)' longfile > /dev/null > > You think that's fair? Surely you can't expect Jamie's extended regex > support to outperform GNU's simple

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Hi Alex, Alex Povolotsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of > mail-only users. They should never access anything besides their > POP3 mailboxes and change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them t

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Oh yeah, and check out the jail code (sections 2 and 4, I *think* -CURRENT only). - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Alex Povolotsky wrote: > I'm going to implement a large mail-box, with several hundreds of mail-only > users. They should never access anything besides their POP3 mailboxes and > change password via (SSLed) web interface. > > So, I don't want to add all of them to /etc/passw

Re: Solution for mail pseudo-users?

Alex Povolotsky wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sergey Babkin writes: > >> Any suggestions, anyone? > > > >Modify the POP daemon to use your mySQL database in addition to getpwent ? > >That seems to be the easiest way that should not break anything else. > > And modify sendmail to throw off mail

Re: Documenting writev(2) ENOBUFS error

Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > > > :[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wes Peters) writes: > > : > > :> [ENOBUFS] Insufficient system buffer space exists to complete the op- > > :>eration. > > : > > :Do you know what kind of circumstances that error *really* occurs > > :under? > > S

Re: No elf(5) man page (docs/7914)

Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > > * Nik Clayton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990730 23:37]: > > Hi folks, > > > > We have an a.out(5), but no elf(5) (as pointed out in docs/7914). > > > > Does anyone feel up to writing one? > > Saw it before, noticed it, placed on my to-do list. If no-one objects > I'll

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > We got off onto a big tangent about switches and vlans and stuff and I > learned a number of interesting things, don't get me wrong, but we > still haven't established any consensus on the trade-offs of enabling > bpf. This wasn't meant to be a hypothetical discuss

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

"Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > > In that case, my argument changes to: > > "There's no good reason not to have bpf in the GENERIC kernel." > > And how about having > if (securelevel > 3) > return (EPERM); > in bpf_open()?

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: > : > There are no security levels > 3. I'd be happy with > 0. This is > : > consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". > : > : Would you be willing to make this change? > > Yes. I will make this change tomor

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :> consistant with the meaning of "raw devices". > : > :Disabling bpf it will break rarpd (and also rbootd but it is less > :important). I think such a thing should be mentioned in documentation. > : > :-SB > > Not if rarpd is started via the rc files... it would ho

Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wes Peters writes: : Do we have a list of all services that use bpf? I'm willing to edit the man : pages, given a list. I guess I could just grep-o-matic here, huh? Yes. I'm also in a holding off pattern until we know the exact impact for all daemons that use th

Re: replacing grep(1)

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > I rather hope that the rumoured newer version of H. Spencer's regex > lib is faster... Being as slow for that pattern as it is has got to > be a bug of some sort... It's actually faster to scan the file twice, > once for the first string and then for

Re: Mentioning RFC numbers in /etc/services

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:05:14 MST, Doug wrote: > > > I still haven't heard anyone answer the two key (IMO) questions. > > Your questions are easier answered in reverse order: > > > and how do you justify the additional cost to parse the file for every > > single s

  1   2   >