Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:11:35PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:35:19AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02:57AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstanti

Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree

Hmm thanks for discussion. I'll install and test FBSD 10 in this weekend. thanks Nakata Maho From: Steve Kargl Subject: Re: Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:43:02 -0800 > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:31:44PM +0100, Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: >> On 11/14/

Re: Feature request: sticky bit inheritance

On 11/28/13, 12:17 AM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: Bezüglich Julian Elischer's Nachricht vom 27.11.2013 16:20 (localtime): On 11/27/13, 8:03 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: Hello, ever since I took a FreeBSD machine into production, acting as any kind of file server, I have to work arround

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > And, as the last resort, I do understand that this sounds as giving up, > do you monitor the temperature of the CPUs ? BTW, which CPUs are that, > please show the cpu identification lines from the boot dmesg. Idle temps: hw.acpi.thermal.tz0.temperature: 38

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: Hi Thanks for this URL, I've meet this problem on my FreeBSD 9.2 few > weeks ago (public NTP registered in the pool.ntp.org). > Same for me. > > There is a thread on the ntp.org ML about this too: > http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/po

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > Does it have a CVE? The article is low on content > > I don't think so. I think there were lot of ideas about the DDoS, that's the only article suggesting a right solution (in my experience). I think they are still investigating. Italian FreeB

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:35:19AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02:57AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, D

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02:57AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, D

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Cristiano Deana wrote: > Hi, > > is it possible to include in base system of the upcoming 10.0 the new > version of ntp (4.2.7 instead of 4.2.4)? > > There is a bug in older versions (< 4.2.7) who allows attacker use an ntp > server to DDoS. This has been corrected

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:35:19AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02:57AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstanti

Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:31:44 +0100 Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > Trying to migrate to 10, I would like to keep octave. Have you found > anything new? Having build the port and all dependencies with standard > options, octave is segfaulting for me, too. Anyhow, I can run octave with: > > env LD_PRE

[review] sendfile / sendfile_sync refactoring

Hi, Here's part #2 in my sendfile refactoring. This is a little more intrusive than the first patch. http://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/netflix/20131126-sendfile-sync-refactor-2.diff My aim here is to move the sendfile_sync stuff out of uipc_syscalls.c and out of sendfile-only code and into somet

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:02:57AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstanti

Re: warning

On Wednesday 27 November 2013 12:59:10 Ajtim wrote: > On Wednesday 27 November 2013 17:07:40 you wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Ajtim wrote: > > > OS: FreeBSD 10.0-BETA3 #0 r257580: Sun Nov 3 19:43:01 UTC 2013 > > > r...@snap.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 > > >

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, D

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33:30AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> >>

Re: Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree

On 11/14/2013 15:45, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:54:52AM +, David Chisnall wrote: >> On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:40, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> >>> On the other hand, different C++ standard libraries simply cannot be >>> mixed. The internal implementations are usually completely d

Re: Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:31:44PM +0100, Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote: > On 11/14/2013 15:45, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > And in practice, it is broken. > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-November/046565.html > > > > QED > > Trying to migrate to 10, I would like to ke

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> >> > >> > What is the instruction

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:41:36AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> > > > > What is the instruction at cpu_switch+0x9b ? > > movl 0x8(%edx),%ea

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> > > What is the instruction at cpu_switch+0x9b ? movl 0x8(%edx),%eax This machine is running in i386 mode. ___

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Cristiano Deana wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > >> >> > There is a bug in older versions (< 4.2.7) who allows attacker use an >> > ntp >> > server to DDoS. This has been corrected in new version: >> > https://cert.litnet.lt/en/docs/ntp

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 02:49:12AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > What is the instruction at cpu_switch+0x9b ? pgpkUYYh0Npao.pgp Description: PGP signature

python 2.7

OS: FreeBSD 10.0-BETA3 #0 r257580: Sun Nov 3 19:43:01 UTC 2013 r...@snap.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 I have all the time python related warnings: WARNING pid 1615 (python2.7): ioctl sign-extension ioctl 80087467 WARNING pid 1617 (python2.7): ioctl sign-extension

warning

OS: FreeBSD 10.0-BETA3 #0 r257580: Sun Nov 3 19:43:01 UTC 2013 r...@snap.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 When I boot a computer I got one warning: /etc/rc: WARNING: $tcsd_enable is not set properly I don't now on which setting is this warning related. My rc.conf looks like:

[HEADSUP!!!] do not upgrade to or past r258632 if you use ZFS + TRIM

on 26/11/2013 11:57 Andriy Gapon said the following: > Author: avg > Date: Tue Nov 26 09:57:14 2013 > New Revision: 258632 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/258632 > > Log: > MFV r255255: 4045 zfs write throttle & i/o scheduler performance work > > illumos/illumos-gate@69962b5

Re: Feature request: sticky bit inheritance

Bezüglich Julian Elischer's Nachricht vom 27.11.2013 16:20 (localtime): > On 11/27/13, 8:03 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: >> Hello, >> >> ever since I took a FreeBSD machine into production, acting as any kind >> of file server, I have to work arround the problem, that write access to >> a dire

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > > There is a bug in older versions (< 4.2.7) who allows attacker use an ntp > > server to DDoS. This has been corrected in new version: > > https://cert.litnet.lt/en/docs/ntp-distributed-reflection-dos-attacks > > > > This attack seems to be in

Re: [request] ntp upgrade

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Cristiano Deana wrote: > Hi, > > is it possible to include in base system of the upcoming 10.0 the new > version of ntp (4.2.7 instead of 4.2.4)? > > There is a bug in older versions (< 4.2.7) who allows attacker use an ntp > server to DDoS. This has been corrected

[request] ntp upgrade

Hi, is it possible to include in base system of the upcoming 10.0 the new version of ntp (4.2.7 instead of 4.2.4)? There is a bug in older versions (< 4.2.7) who allows attacker use an ntp server to DDoS. This has been corrected in new version: https://cert.litnet.lt/en/docs/ntp-distributed-refle

Re: Feature request: sticky bit inheritance

On 11/27/13, 8:03 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: Hello, ever since I took a FreeBSD machine into production, acting as any kind of file server, I have to work arround the problem, that write access to a directory implies unlinking (deleting) directory contents. not sure I fully understand wha

Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

On 27 November 2013 17:59, Shawn Webb wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:07 AM, FreeBSD Tinderbox > wrote: >> >> >>> stage 3.2: building everything >> [...] >> ^ >> /src/sys/sys/sdt.h:153:19: note: expanded from macro 'SDT_PROBE_DEFINE' >> struct sdt_probe sdt_##prov##_##mod##_##f

Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:07 AM, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote: > > >>> stage 3.2: building everything > [...] > ^ > /src/sys/sys/sdt.h:153:19: note: expanded from macro 'SDT_PROBE_DEFINE' > struct sdt_probe sdt_##prov##_##mod##_##func##_##name[1] = { > \ > ^

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

TB --- 2013-11-27 07:20:17 - tinderbox 2.20 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2013-11-27 07:20:17 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2013

[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

TB --- 2013-11-27 07:20:17 - tinderbox 2.20 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2013-11-27 07:20:17 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2013

Re: (bsd)patch vs ports

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:21:58 AM Andriy Gapon wrote: > When building ports on head I sometimes see messages like the following > during a patch phase: > > ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for firefox-25.0_1,1 > No such line 262 in input file, ignoring > ===> Applying NSS patches > No su

Feature request: sticky bit inheritance

Hello, ever since I took a FreeBSD machine into production, acting as any kind of file server, I have to work arround the problem, that write access to a directory implies unlinking (deleting) directory contents. Never heard any sensible explanation why anybody would ever want that behaviour, but

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, I wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:13:41AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >>> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >>> >> It took a while, but I just got another double fault, though th

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:13:41AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> >> It took a while, but I just got another double fault, though this one is >> >> somewhat d

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:13:41AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > >> It took a while, but I just got another double fault, though this one is > >> somewhat different. This time it trapped in cpu_switc

FreeBSD 10.0-BETA3 snapshots (pre -BETA4) now available

FreeBSD 10.0-BETA3 snapshots are now available. These images are generated from r258657 of stable/10, and are intended as pre -BETA4 snapshots for public testing, until 10.0-BETA4 is rolled (which should be within the next few days). Please note, freebsd-update(8) upgrades are not available for t

(bsd)patch vs ports

When building ports on head I sometimes see messages like the following during a patch phase: ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for firefox-25.0_1,1 No such line 262 in input file, ignoring ===> Applying NSS patches No such line 194 in input file, ignoring No such line 658 in input file, ignoring No

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 27 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> It took a while, but I just got another double fault, though this one is >> somewhat different. This time it trapped in cpu_switch(), which >> resulted in calls to >> trap()->printf()->...->putcha

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: > It took a while, but I just got another double fault, though this one is > somewhat different. This time it trapped in cpu_switch(), which > resulted in calls to > trap()->printf()->...->putchar()->msgbuf_addstr()->_mtx_lock_spin_flags()

Re: panic: double fault with 11.0-CURRENT r258504

On 25 Nov, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:43:30PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: >> I upgraded my 11.0-CURRENT machine to r258504 to get past the uma panic >> that I stumbled across earlier. Now I got this when I started upgrading >> ports: >> >> Unread portion of the kernel mes