In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hay writes:
>> >My concerns are,
>> >
>> >(1)When IPv6 is added to the system, more general id would be
>> > desirable.
>>
>> I agree, *IF* IPv6 ever becomes a reality, we will look at this.
>
>So when will you consider that it became a reality? :-) Or am I
> >> >My concerns are,
> >> >
> >> >(1)When IPv6 is added to the system, more general id would be
> >> > desirable.
> >>
> >> I agree, *IF* IPv6 ever becomes a reality, we will look at this.
> >
> >So when will you consider that it became a reality? :-) Or am I just
> >dreaming that some operat
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hay writes:
>If we want
>people to even think of moving to IPv6 we will have to make as much
>of FreeBSD's functionality work on there as possible.
I personally do not see IPv6 as being desirable at this time.
It suffers from second systems syndrome and does
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > * Matthew Dillon
> > | FreeBSD boxes can handle up to 4 Gigabytes of main memory.
> >
> > Is this true for the Alpha kernels too?
>
> There are issues with > 1GB of RAM on Alphas at the moment, which may
> be easier to resolve soon. We have a 4100
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> "Stephane E. Potvin" wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately no. It uses a stripped down linux kernel as firmware.
>
> In that case the source code is available, yes?
>
> M... have you tried ext2fs?
Doesn't the netwinder support netbooting? If so, that i
Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about the reverse, where you link in PIC compiled libraries into
> static (.a) libraries? Does this work?
Sure. Look at how lib${LIB}_pic.a is done i . PIC-code
is less efficient than non-PIC code.
/assar
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
> > I agree, *IF* IPv6 ever becomes a reality, we will look at this.
>
> So when will you consider that it became a reality? :-) Or am I just
> dreaming that some operating systems and routers ship with IPv6 and
> that IANA, ARIN, APNIC and RIPE are dishing out IPv6 addresses and
> that we are in
-security stripped
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yoshinobu Inoue writes:
:>(2)What is the goal of the restriction?
:To isolate people in the jail from the "real" machine and from
:other jails.
What does jail do that chroot doesn't? I've seen s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jamie Bowden
writes:
>
>-security stripped
>
>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yoshinobu Inoue writes:
>
>:>(2)What is the goal of the restriction?
>
>:To isolate people in the jail from the "real" machine and from
>:
I have set up an environment of remote serial debugging on FreeBSD
3.3-Release. I have a program that whenever it runs the kernel panics.
Is there any way I can use remote serial debugging to trace this panic
process instead of examining a dead kernel (i.e., coredump)?
Or, is there any way I c
I've been digging around in the sio driver, trying to find out how it handles
receive interrupts when the clists are full.
What I think I found (which is why I'm asking) is that if an RX interrupt
occurs, and the clists are full and the driver can't offload all of the
data from the UART, it disab
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 8:52:58 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> >
> > I have set up an environment of remote serial debugging on FreeBSD
> > 3.3-Release. I have a program that whenever it runs the kernel panics.
> > Is there any way I can use remote
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 8:52:58 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> >
> > I have set up an environment of remote serial debugging on FreeBSD
> > 3.3-Release. I have a program that whenever it runs the kernel panics.
> > Is there any way I can use remote
> >> I agree, *IF* IPv6 ever becomes a reality, we will look at this.
Actually I just started to import KAME into freebsd-current,
and found jail code in kernel pcb part.
> >If we want
> >people to even think of moving to IPv6 we will have to make as much
> >of FreeBSD's functionality work on th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yoshinobu Inoue writes:
>(1)It seems to me that once an IP# is specified for a jail,
> then that IP# should not be re-specified for another jail.
> Is this true?
Generally yes, although nothing in the code tries to (nor should
it try to) enforce it.
>(2)If (1
On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 8:52:58 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> I have set up an environment of remote serial debugging on FreeBSD
> 3.3-Release. I have a program that whenever it runs the kernel panics.
> Is there any way I can use remote serial debugging to trace this panic
> process in
: Unfortunately, when you take setuid programs into account, it gets
: far less clear: Reasonable cases could be made for having the owner
: either the real or effective UID.
The case for effective seems quite clear to me, but
I can't see the case for real UID. What is it?
To Unsubscribe: se
> I'm not against adding IPv6 functionality to jail(2), my point is
> merely that until somebody who has sufficient time & ability to
> fiddle with it does it, it's not going to happen.
>
> The usual rule applies:
>
> "Great idea, why don't you send me patches which does this ?"
OK, then I'll
lsof is obviously having trouble interpreting the data from
the kernel. You could try recompiling lsof, but if it produces
the same junk you will just have to ignore it. I don't particularly
see anything related to NFS in the information you've presented so
far.
I recomm
Alexey Zelkin wrote:
>
> Looks fine! What about including something like that to distribution and
> have enabled by default ? It's much easy for newbie users to get it enabled
> by default and not hacked machine (also by default).
Passwords? On the loader? By default? No! :-) Passwords on the
lo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jamie Bowden
writes:
: What does jail do that chroot doesn't? I've seen several discussions on
: jail on -hackers, but no explanation of why it was implemented, or how
: it's different from chroot.
It restricts root's ability to do things which would otherwise all
On 9 Nov 1999, Assar Westerlund wrote:
> Nate Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about the reverse, where you link in PIC compiled libraries into
> > static (.a) libraries? Does this work?
>
> Sure. Look at how lib${LIB}_pic.a is done i . PIC-code
> is less efficient than non-PIC co
Zhihui Zhang writes:
> Thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that when I use commands "gdb"
> (enter remote protocol mode) and "step" on the target machine, the
> debugging machine takes control (it executes "target remote /dev/cuaa1").
> In this case, how can I run anything on the target
On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 13:36:56 -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Zhihui Zhang writes:
>> Thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that when I use commands "gdb"
>> (enter remote protocol mode) and "step" on the target machine, the
>> debugging machine takes control (it executes "target rem
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 13:36:56 -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> > Zhihui Zhang writes:
> >> Thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that when I use commands "gdb"
> >> (enter remote protocol mode) and "step" on the target machine, the
> >> debu
On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 16:04:34 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 13:36:56 -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>>> Zhihui Zhang writes:
Thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that when I use commands "gdb"
(enter re
uh archie, that's a whistle specific sysctl :-)
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Zhihui Zhang writes:
> > Thanks for your reply. What confuses me is that when I use commands "gdb"
> > (enter remote protocol mode) and "step" on the target machine, the
> > debugging machine takes contr
Julian Elischer writes:
> uh archie, that's a whistle specific sysctl :-)
Are you sure? We should check it in, it's very useful!
> > I'm not sure if this answers your question, but the command
> >
> > sysctl -w debug.cebugger=1
^ should be "debugger"
> >
> > will ca
On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 at 14:41:23 -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Julian Elischer writes:
>> uh archie, that's a whistle specific sysctl :-)
>
> Are you sure? We should check it in, it's very useful!
On my non-Whistle -CURRENT machine I have:
$ sysctl -a | grep debugger
debug.debugger_o
> >
> > Thanks! I will certainly look into them. In the same time, I add a
> > sysctl variable and let my program calls Debugger("some string") if that
> > sysctl variable is true.
>
> I don't understand what that's useful for.
If the kernel routine is going to be called from my code, I set th
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> On my non-Whistle -CURRENT machine I have:
>
> $ sysctl -a | grep debugger
> debug.debugger_on_panic: 1
>
> Is this what you're talking about? Otherwise, what's the difference?
This allows the USER level code to trap to the kernel debugger,
an
According to Poul-Henning Kamp:
> I personally do not see IPv6 as being desirable at this time.
I see it as very desirable now for several reasons besides the usual ones
(shortage of address space, explosion of routing tables):
- it provides true mobility (still in the works I know),
- the large
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (freebsd-hackers-digest)
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: freebsd-hackers-digest V4 #664
>Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:41:52 -0800 (PST)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 05 01:45:07 1999
>Received: from [204.216.27.18] by hotmail.com (3.2) with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ollivier Robert wrote:
>OSI is still present in two major areas: telecom systems (GSM, supervision of
>the same) and Aeronautical systems (Air Traffic Management / Control). I work
>in the latter and we're pushing IPv6 as much as we can.
Suddenly I'
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 12:54:45PM +0900, Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
> Currentlly jail set an ip-number and let prisoned processes
> only to bind it.
[ the current jail(2) interface and its future WRT IPv6 ]
> I think kernel change will not so much for any above addition
> or changes, but there will
> > Then IPv6 support for jail should be very good thing,
> > because extremely many IP addresses become available for
> > a machine with IPv6. (which is not with IPv4)
>
> We have a number of machines with many thousands of IP addresses using
> the patch in PR#12071. It isn't as general a
36 matches
Mail list logo
