Re: review of modifications of eth-multiplexer

Hi, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 06:32:41PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 03:51:16PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net >> wrote: > >>> These are probably all related. It's all part of the network >>> virtualization project. >> I see. The

Re: [PATCH] Devnode: Fix the pseudo-master device port opening flags.

Hi, On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > However, taking into consideration the fact that antrik answers > E-mails pretty fast these days, Only those that I can answer really quickly :-( (Yes, I have an opinion on this question -- but no time presently to write it up

Re: review of modifications of eth-multiplexer

Hi, On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 06:32:41PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 03:51:16PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > These are probably all related. It's all part of the network > > virtualization project. > > I see. The question, then, is whether it is appropriat

Re: review of modifications of eth-multiplexer

Hi, On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:01:50PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > As I said on the IRC, I planned to send you the repository by E-mail, > but the size of the (archived) version is 20MB, which is bad. Did you do "make clean" and "git gc"? > Therefore I've uploaded the archive to flubber, and

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix some minor issues.

Hi, On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:25:47PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > Still, I somehow feel bad about copying from a pointer without doing > an extra check. Would it be an acceptable idea to assert (name) ? Sure: if you think that something *should* be a certain way (non-NULL in this case), but

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement mountee startup.

Hi, On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 05:01:30PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:07:59PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > For the record: We agreed on IRC that rather than changing the assert, > > it's better to go back to the original code, i.e. do the check/EPERM >

Re: Reauthentication implementation flaw due to EINTR

I've checked again the result Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 19:58:12 +0100, a écrit : > > There is this issue as well, which I have fixed already in commit > > 041baa80 (and indeed seen cases where it helped), but that's not enough, > > because not only auth gets EINTR here and can fix t

Re: Reauthentication implementation flaw due to EINTR

On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 06:56:48PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 18:47:51 +0100, a écrit : > > Is it the code below from S_auth_server_authenticate the problem? > > > > /* Store the new port and wait for the user RPC to wake us up. */ > > s.passthroug

Re: Reauthentication implementation flaw due to EINTR

Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 18:47:51 +0100, a écrit : > Is it the code below from S_auth_server_authenticate the problem? > > /* Store the new port and wait for the user RPC to wake us up. */ > s.passthrough = newport; > condition_init (&s.wakeup); > ports_interrupt_self_on_po

Re: Reauthentication implementation flaw due to EINTR

Hi, On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 08:43:12PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > I had been noticing odd issues with sudo when it calls setresuid & > such, it took me some time to understand that there was a flaw in the > reauthentication implementation: > > sudo calls setresuid(), which calls setauth()

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement mountee startup.

Hi, On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:07:59PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:46PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:05:16PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:28:37AM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > > >

[bug #28408] unionmount doesn't reauthenticate handle to mountee on setauth()

URL: Summary: unionmount doesn't reauthenticate handle to mountee on setauth() Project: The GNU Hurd Submitted by: hammy Submitted on: Sat 26 Dec 2009 04:59:33 PM CET Category: Hurd

Re: SMP, barriers, etc.

Da Zheng, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 16:21:55 +0800, a écrit : > Hi, > > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > (I've cleaned To: and subject a bit :) > > > > Da Zheng, le Wed 23 Dec 2009 21:23:23 +0800, a écrit : > >> Samuel Thibault wrote: > Is there anything else we should worry about? > >>> Ordering. See /u

Re: SMP, barriers, etc.

Hi, Samuel Thibault wrote: > (I've cleaned To: and subject a bit :) > > Da Zheng, le Wed 23 Dec 2009 21:23:23 +0800, a écrit : >> Samuel Thibault wrote: Is there anything else we should worry about? >>> Ordering. See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt >> It's a long file. There