Hello,
I have reworked this patch and tested on 6.4. It's now working properly.
I was able to clean up and streamline some of the logic too. I have
checked and it applies cleanly against -current as well.
This patch makes handling of E-Series or "new mode" Huawei devices a bit
more generic, as we
> On 27 Dec 2018, at 5:42 pm, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 09:27:59PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote:
>> Resend because of nasty typo :/
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 08:43:10PM -0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>>> I'm not happy with adding the IFF_MULTICAST flag and SIOC{ADD,DEL
su(1) tries to log the tty name for successful/failed logins, but
ontty()/ttyname() will currently not return anything useful because of
unveil.
This patch adds unveil for /var/run/dev.db. ttyname(3) has also a
fallback that would need /dev/. I left it out, because I don't know if
there is any use
Damien Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > I need to add I worry for the future, the 512-1023 reserved space is
> > being gobbled at a rapid pace by new services, which not only decreases
> > the port# entropy but reduces the total number of reserved ports which
> > c
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I need to add I worry for the future, the 512-1023 reserved space is
> being gobbled at a rapid pace by new services, which not only decreases
> the port# entropy but reduces the total number of reserved ports which
> can be allocated. Fewer software se
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 12:56:34 -0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 27/01/19(Sun) 01:02, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:46:41 -0200
> > > From: Martin Pieuchot
> > >
> > > On MP machines, when a CPU executes mi_switch() and doesn't have any
> > > thread on its runqueue
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 02:56:11PM +0100, Daniel Jakots wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know all the limitations with adding new stuff to services(5) but now
> that a base software (unwind) implements DoT, would it make sense to
> add it to services(5)?
OK florian@ but please don't mention unwind(8) in the co
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs.
Just checking we didn't forget about this. Seems the right thing to do.
On 27/01/19(Sun) 01:02, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 14:46:41 -0200
> > From: Martin Pieuchot
> >
> > On MP machines, when a CPU executes mi_switch() and doesn't have any
> > thread on its runqueue it will try to steal one from another CPU's
> > runqueue. If it fails to steal
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Maximilian Lorlacks wrote:
> > Good day,
> >
> > It seems that fsync(2) may data after returning EIO once[1]. This
> > behaviour seems to cause problems with databases such as PostgreSQL
> > and goes contrary to the man page's description, which says that
> > "fsync() and fda
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:07:05AM -0500, 0sjfoij...@firemail.cc wrote:
> Recently on LCA2019, Joel Sing made a presentation about "Security
> Vulnerability Mitigations"[1]
> (very good, btw). He suggests function strlcpy(3) as a secure API.
> In the same conference, though, Kees Cook ("Making C Le
unbound does so also
Anything known-port which is potentially serviced by a daemon in the base
must be listed in /etc/services, so that it can be added to the
net.inet.{tcp,udp}.baddynamic lists at boot by /etc/rc.
Otherwise, the random port allocator (reserved, non-reserved, and high)
may alloca
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:07:05AM -0500, 0sjfoij...@firemail.cc wrote:
> Recently on LCA2019, Joel Sing made a presentation about "Security
> Vulnerability Mitigations"[1]
> (very good, btw). He suggests function strlcpy(3) as a secure API.
> In the same conference, though, Kees Cook ("Making C Le
Hi,
I know all the limitations with adding new stuff to services(5) but now
that a base software (unwind) implements DoT, would it make sense to
add it to services(5)?
Regarding the comments, I went with the wording from the iana website.
Cheers,
Daniel
Index: services
0sjfoij...@firemail.cc wrote:
> Recently on LCA2019, Joel Sing made a presentation about "Security
> Vulnerability Mitigations"[1]
> (very good, btw). He suggests function strlcpy(3) as a secure API.
> In the same conference, though, Kees Cook ("Making C Less Dangerous in
> the Linux kernel"[2]),
Recently on LCA2019, Joel Sing made a presentation about "Security
Vulnerability Mitigations"[1]
(very good, btw). He suggests function strlcpy(3) as a secure API.
In the same conference, though, Kees Cook ("Making C Less Dangerous in
the Linux kernel"[2]),
recommends strscpy() as more secure. S
On Thu, Jan 24 2019 17:03:57 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Scott Cheloha wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 24, 2019, at 06:19, Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I haven't done any actual measurements though, so it's possible my
> > > reading is wrong.
> >
> > Is there a "grepbench" or
17 matches
Mail list logo
