On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Yuri wrote:
Y> The example below breaks with "Protocol not available"
Y> But what is wrong? Isn't this the correct usage?
Y> LOCAL_CREDS are only handled in kern/uipc_usrreq.c for AF_LOCAL, so it
Y> isn't clear why this doesn't work.
Y>
Y> --- example.c -
Hi,
I set up a kerberos server on a raspberry platform. To prove
that all is working I enabled the telnetd to use kerberos auth.
When trying to connect to the localhost or the ip assigned (so just use the
-current telnet with the -current telnetd and the -current kerberos server)
to the network in
Yuri,
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:54:59AM -0700, Yuri wrote:
Y> I found the case when sendmsg(2) silently loses packets for AF_LOCAL
Y> domain when large packets with control part in them are sent.
Y>
Y> Here is how:
Y> There is the watermark limit on sockbuf determined by
Y> net.local.stream.
On 09/11/13 07:54, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> N> I'd like to merge r254341 from user/np/cxl_tuning to head if there are
> N> no objections. It eliminates a couple of iffy looking constructs in
> N> uipc_mbuf.c
> N>
> N>
> http://svnwe
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:10:42PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Yuri wrote:
T> Y> The example below breaks with "Protocol not available"
T> Y> But what is wrong? Isn't this the correct usage?
T> Y> LOCAL_CREDS are only handled in kern/uipc_usrreq.c for AF
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
N> I'd like to merge r254341 from user/np/cxl_tuning to head if there are
N> no objections. It eliminates a couple of iffy looking constructs in
N> uipc_mbuf.c
N>
N>
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/np/cxl_tuning/sys/kern/uipc_mb
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013, at 18:11, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> IIRC, the new iSCSI stack is currently tested more for correctness than
> performance?
>
Yes, but it's in the kernel vs istgt which is all userland code. It
could very well be faster. I'm quite interested in seeing someone put up
some seriou
On 09/11/13 02:15, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:31:49AM +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
Hi,
This patch shows the same behavior as the unpatched kernel:
[...]
I'd like to note that if I perform a tcpdump from the other machine
(which is also the dns server) I do see the packets
