On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 03:33:16AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > much less CPU and plenty of places to strike. Protecting your network
> > infrastructure is certainly the next place to go after you protect your
> > high-target hosts.
> >
> > For some examples, see http://www.e-gerbil.net/r
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:04:30PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 09:07:31PM +0200, Mikko S. Hyvarinen wrote:
> > The on-board 3com MAC and Broadcom/Altima PHY are not being detected by the
> > xl(4) driver in -current (cvsup done yesterday evening).
> > In the Award BIOS the
On Mon, 2003/01/13 at 17:47:11 +0100, Martin Blapp wrote:
> #10 0xc03df350 in trap (frame=
> {tf_fs = 24, tf_es = -65520, tf_ds = 16, tf_edi = 2, tf_esi = -1031597312,
> tf_ebp = -854635944, tf_isp = -854635988, tf_ebx = -1031595264, tf_edx = 4,
> tf_ecx = 0, tf_eax = 0, tf_trapno = 12, tf_er
Hi Thomas,
> The solution should be to reject the listen() with EINVAL (which seems
> to be that standard-mandated error for connected sockets); patch
> attached.
Cool, thank you for the proposed solution. I suspected something like this;
rpcgen does generate quite broken code sometimes, and nob
I'm interested in whether the following could be acomplished:
there's KLD module, installing some new syscalls in the kernel, as well as
installing new ``struct ipprotosw'' for some protocol or another(let's
assume IPPROTO_UDP).
Could we just add some code in the begging of the new protocol handler
I'm interested in whether the following could be acomplished:
there's KLD module, installing some new syscalls in the kernel, as well as
installing new ``struct ipprotosw'' for some protocol or another(let's
assume IPPROTO_UDP).
Could we just add some code in the begging of the new protocol handler
Radoslav Vasilev wrote:
> I'm interested in whether the following could be acomplished:
> there's KLD module, installing some new syscalls in the kernel, as well as
> installing new ``struct ipprotosw'' for some protocol or another(let's
> assume IPPROTO_UDP).
> Could we just add some code in the b
It is not very simple. However Netgraph/ng_socket.c does something similar.
net_add_domain is called from ngs_mod_event().
However, it is not possible to remove this module because the feature to
remove a domain is missing.
switch (event) {
case MOD_LOAD:
/* Regi
