On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:02:23 -0800
"Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:51:51 +
> > From: Dominic Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:41:00 -0800
> > "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Robert Wats
Hi!
Looks like geom_label is leaking some memory to the last sector used to
store metadata.
Lots of rubbish after the label:
000ffe00h: 47 45 4F 4D 3A 3A 4C 41 42 45 4C 00 00 00 00 00 ; GEOM::LABEL.
000ffe10h: 02 00 00 00 74 65 73 74 00 00 00 00 F0 B4 BF BF ; testð´¿¿
000ffe20h: 0
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> My poking uncovered a set of crashing bugs and potentially a livelock.
>> I would agree that NFS is very fragile in RELENG_6.
>> So far I've not run into an NFS server deadlock you
>> described.
>
>Are you sure these are NFS pr
On Friday, 24 November 2006 at 11:11:48 +0800, LI Xin wrote:
> Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 November 2006 at 20:24:15 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:55:49 +0200, Nikolay Pavlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi.
> >>> It seems i have a
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 10:36:57PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> Thanks for that, from our point of view its required
> as without the machine deadlocks without even trying.
>
> One real strange thing was that if I created a copy of
> the vnode file, this particular task ( installworld )
> would
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Dominic Marks wrote:
It happened again last night (at almost exactly midnight). Several failures
seem to have coincided with crontab jobs and I have never had the system
crash while I was logged on the the system directly. Either I was logged in
over the net or was not lo
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:18:22PM +, Robert Watson wrote:
> Is there an open PR on this problem currently? I'm in the process of
> reviewing my outstanding network PRs for 6.2 and I'm having trouble
> tracking down all the pieces of this report.
Has GNATS been fixed? I mean its search (by
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:18:22 + (GMT)
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Dominic Marks wrote:
>
> >> It happened again last night (at almost exactly midnight). Several
> >> failures
> >> seem to have coincided with crontab jobs and I have never had the system
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:18:22PM +, Robert Watson wrote:
Is there an open PR on this problem currently? I'm in the process of
reviewing my outstanding network PRs for 6.2 and I'm having trouble
tracking down all the pieces of this report.
Eugene Grosbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has GNATS been fixed? I mean its search (by ID or single line fields).
Works for me:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?text=locking
--
WBR, Victor V. Snezhko
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 09:41:16PM +0600, Victor Snezhko wrote:
> > Has GNATS been fixed? I mean its search (by ID or single line fields).
> Works for me:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?text=locking
Doesn't work for me:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?text=Aqua
It looks like this one may have slipped through the cracks. I don't think
there's any reason not to include support for the SMC 2532W-B in -STABLE's
wi driver when all it needs is a reference to an existing definition. See
this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/mailing.freebsd.mobile/brows
> These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD only and I guess, Solaris and other
> BSDs still use UFS. Are they more robust against this exploit or type
> of exploit?
I don't know of a concerted effort by anyone to improve UFS in this
way. I would guess that the odd bug would have been resolved, but
Running the patch now. So far its still running. Up for 22:57 at the
moment. I also made a change to my kern.maxusers to make it 320. It was
setting it at 250 automatically, so I bumped it up as I saw someone
else's post on a bug saying his maxusers option in the kernel was 15.
Figured smaller
David Malone wrote:
These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD only and I guess, Solaris and other
BSDs still use UFS. Are they more robust against this exploit or type
of exploit?
I don't know of a concerted effort by anyone to improve UFS in this
way. I would guess that the odd bug would have b
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 03:08:58PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>> Using these two sources for getting nfe() driver support for my FreeBSD
>> 6.2-BETA/AMD64 box was pretty convenient in the past weeks due to my big
>> interrupt problems using the nve() driver.
>>
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:58:39 -0700
> From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> David Malone wrote:
>
> >>These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD only and I guess, Solaris and other
> >>BSDs still use UFS. Are they more robust against this exploit or type
> >>of exp
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:58:39 -0700
From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Malone wrote:
These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD only and I guess, Solaris and other
BSDs still use UFS. Are they more robust against this exploit or type
of expl
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:33:25 +
> From: Dominic Marks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:18:22 + (GMT)
> Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Dominic Marks wrote:
> >
> > >> It happened again last night (at a
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:40:17 -0700
> From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:58:39 -0700
> >> From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> David Malone wrote:
> >>
> These two bugs are shown for FreeBSD
Please note that emails containing attachments with the following file types
are blocked from entering our system:
386, 3gr, add, ade, asp, bas, bat, chm, cmd, com,
cpl, crt, dbx, dll, exe, fon, hta, inf, ins, isp, js, jse,
lnk, mde, msc, msi, msp, mst, ocx, pcd, pif, reg,
scr, sct, shs, shb, vb,
TB --- 2006-11-25 05:51:25 - tinderbox 2.3 running on freebsd-stable.sentex.ca
TB --- 2006-11-25 05:51:25 - starting RELENG_6_2 tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2006-11-25 05:51:25 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2006-11-25 05:51:25 - checking out the source tree
TB --- 2006-11-25 05:51:25 -
22 matches
Mail list logo
