"Replicated similar functionality" is indeed a security issue.
It's a security problem, sometimes - the whole buffer overflow being
replicated everywhere thing, for example.
But replication also gives robustness in the face of failure, so it
can also be a security asset. Still an issue, just not
Hi,
rauldmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> But replication also gives robustness in the face of failure, so it
> can also be a security asset. Still an issue, just not a security
> problem. (Or, a problem, but for people trying to defeat security.)
Yes, but especially in cases of untested, new ways of do
On 2017-08-26, Bryan Linton wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 13:09:14, Jordon wrote:
>> I’ve been running snapshots on my machine for a while now. About once or
>> twice a week I will interrupt the boot with ‘bsd.rd’ and run through the ‘U’
>> process to get the latest builds. The only weirdness is tha
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, wrote:
> The greater the body of code is, the smaller our understanding, or at
> least our ability to grok the code.
>
> Even in the UNIX world, 'duckspeak' code -- just doing what seems right
> without realizing the longer-term implications -- is unfortunately ve
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 01:57:46PM -0700, Heppler, J. Scott wrote:
> The wikidevi entry suggests that this may be low-hanging fruit to
> add to OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD. The question I have is whether to give
> the MediaTek away and try to purchase on older RealTek or be patient and
> wait a few mon
Sorry for the tyop in the subject line, boy will I be glad to get rid of
this $#@$%&! webmail poop that doesn't know how to send a proper
reply...
Of course, to add insult to injury, I can't manually send the messages
either, as the openbsd.org mail swerver decides, on connection, that I'm
sending
Hi,
rauldmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, wrote:
>> The greater the body of code is, the smaller our understanding, or at
>> least our ability to grok the code.
>>
>> Even in the UNIX world, 'duckspeak' code -- just doing what seems right
>> without realizing the longer
> On Aug 26, 2017, at 4:14 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2017-08-26, Bryan Linton wrote:
>> On 2017-08-25 13:09:14, Jordon wrote:
>>> I’ve been running snapshots on my machine for a while now. About once or
>>> twice a week I will interrupt the boot with ‘bsd.rd’ and run through the
>>
On 2017/08/26 07:27, Jordon wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 2017, at 4:14 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > On 2017-08-26, Bryan Linton wrote:
> >> On 2017-08-25 13:09:14, Jordon wrote:
> >>> I’ve been running snapshots on my machine for a while now. About once or
> >>> twice a week I will interru
Hi George,
George Brown wrote on Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:01:05PM +0100:
> In mandocdb.c it appears cmp(1) and rm(1) are executed in a child
> process.
Indeed, i never really liked that, yet i didn't spend much time
thinking about it either.
> It seems that if the logic from these programs were
Hi,
there isn't the one answer that fits all situations.
The goal in this respect is simplicity and maintainability.
Often, it is simpler to maintain two copies of similar code.
For example, the libc and kernel implementations of malloc(3)
and malloc(9) are distinct. Reacharound between kernel
Hi,
schwa...@usta.de wrote:
> there isn't the one answer that fits all situations.
>
> The goal in this respect is simplicity and maintainability.
Yup.
> Often, it is simpler to maintain two copies of similar code.
> For example, the libc and kernel implementations of malloc(3)
> and malloc(9) a
> > P.S.
> > There is no good reason to insult Todd
>
> I don't know him, I might've heard of him once. Needless to say, the
> insult obviously wasn't personal.
>
> > for running spamd(8), which
> > is a standard tool and less annoying than some others.
>
> How do you find 'Hello, spam sender. P
Hi,
dera...@openbsd.org wrote:
> Then please demonstrate your sensitivity by stopping use of the
> OpenBSD project's mailing lists.
Oh? Who's the thin-skinned one, now?
> Obviously what I'm saying isn't a personal insult.
I didn't even know his name, still don't know his e-mail addr, and
certai
Hi George,
George Brown wrote on Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:01:05PM +0100:
> In mandocdb.c it appears cmp(1) and rm(1) are executed in a child
> process. It seems that if the logic from these programs were duplicated
> the pledge in mandocdb.c could be further restricted and even not bother
> with f
Thank you for the replies Ingo and the diffs!
George Brown
On 26 August 2017 at 17:04, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> George Brown wrote on Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:01:05PM +0100:
>
>> In mandocdb.c it appears cmp(1) and rm(1) are executed in a child
>> process. It seems that if the logic
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> + if ((cp1 = mmap(NULL, sb1.st_size, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE,
> + fd1, 0)) == NULL) {
> + say(MANDOC_DB, "&mmap");
> + goto err;
> + }
> + if ((cp2 = mmap(NULL, sb2.st_size, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE,
> + fd2, 0)) == NULL) {
> +
Hi Ted,
Ted Unangst wrote on Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 02:35:01PM -0400:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> +if ((cp1 = mmap(NULL, sb1.st_size, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE,
>> +fd1, 0)) == NULL) {
>> +say(MANDOC_DB, "&mmap");
>> +goto err;
>> +}
>> +if ((cp2 = mmap(NULL,
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > this could just be memcmp.
>
> I avoided that over quibbles about the argument type (off_t vs.
> size_t), though i admit that database files larger than a Gigabyte
> make no sense at all.
>
> If you consider that an improvement, i'm not opposed to using
> memcmp(3). But
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > > this could just be memcmp.
> >
> > I avoided that over quibbles about the argument type (off_t vs.
> > size_t), though i admit that database files larger than a Gigabyte
> > make no sense at all.
> >
> > If you consider that an improvement, i'm not
Just a tip from an outsider.
I would suggest you show a little sympathy for those who are getting
spammed by useless Nigerian scammers, cryptovirus authors, and the
like, claiming to be some kind of "Head of Financial Business
Management Department Business Managing Director" or some other sort of
Hi Alessandro,
Am 15. August 2017 15:57:01 MESZ schrieb Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
:
>Dear misc@ readers,
>
>From mount_nfs(8):
>
> -b If an initial attempt to contact the server fails, fork off a
> child to keep trying the mount in the background. Useful for
> fstab(5),
22 matches
Mail list logo
