On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Milford wrote:
> Unless I am misunderstanding you, mfs does what you are
> describing.
I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding him. MFS is not even close.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the
One last thing: if you're writing userfs you might want to look at
www.inter-mezzo.org
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
what if you're not root, and you want to add your own file system to your
file system name space? It seems a lot of these systems assume root
access, which seems unrealistic to me.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Well, if you're running it as a kernel module then obviously you need root
> permissions to load it. If it's running as a userland process, then
> there's no reason why you can't run it as a user. mount presumably
> wouldn't care as long as you had acce
I'm working with intermezzo now. It's interesting.
Note that the VFS is quite simple, and defines a simple kernel-user
channel which maps VFS ops to requests on an IPC channel. The
possibilities are endless ...
A freebsd port would be nice. Maybe you could use v9fs as a starting
point.
ron
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> > Are you saying that as an ordinary user I can mount something on top of
> > /tmp, for example?
> If the vfs.usermount sysctl is 1, and you have appropriate access to the
> thing y
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Ronald G. Minnich wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > Or, let's say I don't have "appropriate access" to /tmp. Pick some other
> > place. I mount my file system there for my files. Now everyone who wants
> >
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Mark Newton wrote:
> "Appropriate access" includes the idea that you need to own the mountpoint
> directory. If you have a system that's so badly run that arbitrary users
> own /tmp, then I'd say user mounts are the least of your problems :-)
True. But the fact is, if I ca
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> > Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> > > But thanks for the note. I just now realized that if I add a private name
> > > space to v9fs (which is easy), and then turn on user mou
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Ouch. I don't think anyone understands the VOP stuff completely. It's
> a big mess -- which is why it's going to be rewritten later this year.
>
> Your best bet is to study the implementation of the UFS/FFS filesystem.
well, i'd do v9
I'm making them available on my web page, www.acl.lanl.gov/~rminnich
Thanks to Dolphin for allowing this release. Questions to me.
it's not the greatest driver on the planet. If you want to write a better
one you can use mine as a model. I'm probably done with SCI for now, but
I'll take bug fix
don't use shmget if you can. Use mmap'ed files. The SYSV shm interface is
incredibly dumb.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
I lost track of the quotes.
> > | --- With the help of Veritas Software Corp., SGI will work to add
> > | key features of its Irix operating system to the Linux platform.
> > | Currently, Irix runs on the MIPS platform. Once SGI switches
> > | entirely to Intel Corp.'s IA/64 platform, that will
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > For an interesting take on all this visit www.mipsabi.org
> Uh, that site is dead, as of the end of this month. See the
> first link ("announcement").
Precisely my point ...
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The concept of private namespaces does not exist on FreeBSD.
> It would require a modification of the lookup mechanism, and,
> potentially, a seperation of credentials from the process into
> a session manager.
Yeah but you can fake it pretty well with
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> > But I can't get anyone interested :-(
> Uh, we're all interested; where's the code?
v9fs is the first piece. The servers are done. But I'm mostly out of the
freebsd hacking business at this point (except for maybe via drivers) so I
need some help to ge
the only portable user ids are names as strings. you can kludge and kludge
but at some point the kludges will pile up too high, fall over, and hurt
somebody. how many new options did we see proposed in the last 12 hours
for this problem?
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
You have a lot mixed up here.
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> Once inside the kernel, the NFS daemons can not use RPC library any more,
> they must create/interprete RPC format messages themselves. My guess this
> is for performance reason and because there is no kernel-to-kernel RPC
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Darren R. Davis wrote:
> Nate Williams wrote:
> I believe that a Bus Error is specifically referencing miss aligned data vs
> segmentation violation
> (SIGSEGV) which is accessing data that is either free'd or not yours, etc.
> I always thought
> it strange on an Intel proc
anybody got some reliable, tested, known-good code for getting back to
real mode? I'm to the point where I have a working GDT, and paging is
turned off, but the last step -- turning off protection enable -- is not
working for me.
This is on a PII.
Thanks
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EM
well, I'll go check that. I'm finding that there is fair amounts of code
out there that is broken. Thanks to the wonderful PC bios you have a hard
time sometimes telling the difference between code that crashes into the
bios and code that actually works right, since the result is the same
either w
I'm wondering if anyone in this group has done or knows of a good profile
of a tcp send going from user mode to bits on the wire. Reason I'm asking
is the old "put TCP/IP on the NIC" is once again rearing its head, and I'm
hoping there are numbers I can point to (ones that aren't old, that is)
abo
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Youse wrote:
> One of the biggest reasons for the difference: FreeBSD, by default,
> performs _synchronous_ metadata updates, and Linux performs asynchronous
> metadata updates.
>
> It's definitely a bit slower, but the payoff is in reliability. I have
> seen more
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote:
> as far as I remember ext2 has some "counter". I used to use Linux and
> it performed 'fsck' from time to time (even if fs was clearly unmounted).
> that is a very good thing to have.
And it's a good thing because ... well, maybe because it's not that
FWIW -- I think a reasonable goal of "getting stats out of the kernel" is
that pulling data out ought to run as fast as bcopy, and it would be nice
if you didn't have to drop into a syscall. Kind of an extreme position, I
guess, but if you have ever seen the rstatd on linux eat 12% of cpu to
retu
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> > How do I set up a system call of my own in the FreeBSD kernel?
>
> I think the easiest way to do this is with a kld. It's less intrusive
yes, if you're doing a system call use freebsd's excellent kld support.
It's really pretty slick. Don't mu
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> lseek(fileno(fp), 3 * 8192, SEEK_CUR);
don't mix things that use file descriptors with stdio. End of problem.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Actually I wrote a system call for opening a file given a file handle for
freebsd a while back (oh, gee, has it really been 5 years ...), as part of
mnfs i'll try to find it. You don't need to map it to a filename to
make it go.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "un
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
> I've noticed about 99% of the panics on our machines are the result of NFS,
> more often than not it is the result of a backing store file being blown
> away underneath the client. ie. person editing a file on one machine,
> compiling and running on
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> I used to know that memory to memory copy is done by the DMA controller in
> the I/O bridge (Actually, this knowledge confues me because DMA controller
Now, that brings back memories :-)
check out the original dma chip design, ca. infinite years ago. W
Sorry I missed this question. Check www.acl.lanl.gov/~rminnich for v9fs
and see if you can use it.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> I have modified FFS filesystem code to put the disk inode at the beginning
> of a file, i.e, the logical block #0 of each file begins with 128 bytes of
> its disk inode and the rest of it are file data.
first question I have is, why?
ron
To Unsubscri
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> I am doing some research on filesystem. I guess it may be faster to put
> the disk inode with its file data together so that both can be read into
> memory in one I/O.
I still don't get it. To get the file, you do a lookup. So the inode is in
memory. Th
good flag. If you look at my old mnfs stuff you can see our solution : we
ignored sync :-)
This is a good move.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
you can do this kind of thing with the bfd tools ...
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> I'm sorry I missed the discussion on rfork()... but I say this only
> because I want to understand.
>
> What were you thinking? rfork()? Why is it a system call?
>
> Almost all of the flags it accepts seem like functionality that can easily
> be im
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Alexander Litvin wrote:
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :BTW, concerning rfork(RFMEM). Could somebody explain me, why the
> > :following simple program is coredumping:
> > You cannot call rfork() with RFMEM directly from a C program. You
> > have to u
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Luoqi Chen wrote:
> It's almost a regular fork(), we lose all the advantages of a single
> address space. A rfork(RFMEM) wrapper can achieve the same level of
> usability without sacrificing the performance, and IMO is a preferred
> solution.
I don't see this at all. You get
You also might want to check out SGI's PCP tools. I know, they're only out
for linux just now, but they are nice and could be ported.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> Granted, a lot of Linux distributions are totally unsuited for a server
> environment. Compared to that, I could understand why the
> server-orientedness of FreeBSD is attractive, but I certainly couldn't put
> up a reasonable arguement for either si
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> Can someone tell me why copy-on-write filesystems would be bad?
It's a good idea. Peter Braam and I have written a device (called memdev)
for linux (sorry!) that implements a virtual-memory-backed copy-on-write
block device (like the loopback device
anybody want to try this on -current?
ron
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:02:40 +0100
From: Michael Lampe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How a normal user can crash any linux system
I found the following by accident playing with PVM. If you
Question, has anyone tried booting freebsd on raw hardware, i.e. absent a
bios? I am curious as to how good a job it can do if, e.g., no enable bits
are set in PIIX4, BARs are not set on PCI devices, no IRQs are assigned,
and so on. Anyone feel they are close enough to this to say?
See www.acl.la
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> Well, they're going to have the same basic stuff, and I can see that
> they're not having much fun trying to get there.
actually, "they" is "me": that's my project.
> I'm curious as to what you mean by "have to kill the BIOS" though; I'm
> not seeing w
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
> Yeep. You don't know Fra Dolcini, do you? That looks like a Really
> Unpleasant Undertaking. 8(
It's getting there. Also SiS is now a supporter. Long term, we may see
motherboards specifically designed for the OSS community, with real docs
yet. Also, I
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> What all you think about that ?
I think you need to do a literature search for, oh, say, six months and
get back to us. You'll need to read ca. 256-512 or so articles. I'm not
kidding. You should start reading papers from the 1960s.
And oh yes, do
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Anthony Bourov wrote:
> We host a whole bunch of servers, all FreeBSD, and many of them run on
> intel GX motherboards, which have a feature called EMP. Basically, I didn't
> go to much detail into this, I got that it is a way to monitor/control the
> server through modem/
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Parag Patel wrote:
> Well, OK, that and I toasted the board. Or
> bent a pin - not sure really.
Hey, there's an idea I like. Toasting the board. Get a nice campfire going
and toast the board. cool.
Should go well with hotdogs and marshmallows.
Did you get actual goo
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Nick Sayer wrote:
> I would like to gather some opinions in regards to _very slightly_
> backing off
> on rexec's security.
>
> rexec makes the following checks, and refuses to allow usage if any are
> true:
>
> uid == 0
I turned off this check at sarnoff six years
well linuxbios is what I started here, and I pinged some folks on this
list about supporting freebsd as well as linux, and got a 'no interest'
back from some folks.
I'm still up for it. I think it's easy.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers"
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Stefan Molnar wrote:
> Why? PXE will allow net installs, or diskless. And Serial Console
> is already supported. ( On some high end machines serial console works
> in the prom as well).
well, now you see why i'm not pushing linuxbios too hard in the freebsd
world. If y
So, I repeat: easily done, not acceptable to freebsd core.
I think this situation reflects on the freebsd community and not in a
positive way.
If you care, sometime this year you'll be able to buy motherboards that
boot Linux from flash. SiS is working hard on this and has committed
people and
synergy micro sells power pc boards that boot linux today out of flash.
www.synergy.com
They get it too.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Sergey Babkin wrote:
> Mike Smith wrote:
> > I'd suggest you go talk to Parag Patel, who's just wasted about three
> > months of his life trying to make SmartFirmware run on _one_ supposedly
> > well-documented board. Parag is nobody's fool, and I consider his
> > results
here's what we can. Somebody send a kernel for an L440GX+ that has pretty
minimal stuff. I'd prefer it to have IDE, no networking, no SCSI, i.e. a
pretty small thing. I'll try to use it as the payload for linuxbios and
see if it boots.
The key is that freebsd may need to change a few things to m
sorry, jordan.
my bad. Anyway we're going to try a kernel next week that parag sent me.
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
(paul asks a good microcode question). I can't answer it yet.
Here's my take on this: we're going to do a proof of concept of this idea.
We now have three partners: SiS, Compaq, and Dell. Long-term goal is to
get industry to pick it up. This is a means to an end. I don't want to be
Mr. LinuxBIOS
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Parag Patel wrote:
> No-one else seems to be interested.
actually, that's not quite true. we're seeing a fair amount of interest
here. I suspect vendors are not that interested in supporting another BIOS
unless/until they see potential $$$ ("value proposition" in MBA spea
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
