still ok
Florian Obser(flor...@openbsd.org) on 2020.10.20 21:36:06 +0200:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:11:09PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I believe most of the new local variables you added in main,
> > can instead be added in the flush loop you wrote, even if you
> > have to instantiate them
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:11:09PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I believe most of the new local variables you added in main,
> can instead be added in the flush loop you wrote, even if you
> have to instantiate them. Or move it into a new function,
> then it is even easier. their scope is just t
I believe most of the new local variables you added in main,
can instead be added in the flush loop you wrote, even if you
have to instantiate them. Or move it into a new function,
then it is even easier. their scope is just too large...
> @@ -240,6 +240,17 @@ void pr_retip6
i had observed this before with
for i in `jot 5`;do ping6 -c 1 2001:4860:4860:: 1>/dev/null &done
diff fixes the problem and looks correct to me.
ok benno@
Florian Obser(flor...@openbsd.org) on 2020.10.20 18:39:58 +0200:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>
rpki-client 6.8p0 has just been released and will be available in the
rpki-client directory of any OpenBSD mirror soon.
rpki-client is a FREE, easy-to-use implementation of the Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) for Relying Parties (RP) to
facilitate validation of the Route Origin of a BGP
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> When running:
> /usr/local/libexec/nagios/check_ping -vv -6 -H -c 500,75% -w 250,50%
> in a tight loop at some point I get the following output:
>
> CMD: /sbin/ping6 -n -c 5
> Output: PING (): 56 data bytes
> Output: 64 bytes
We have released OpenBGPD 6.8p0, which will be arriving in the
OpenBGPD directory of your local OpenBSD mirror soon.
This is the first stable release for the 6.8 version. It includes
the following changes:
* In bgpctl(8), the "reload" command now takes a 'reason' argument
to use as Administra
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:14:13AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> such a diff looks like this. it adds a "global" flag that you can set on
> interfaces.
Making addresses on loopback interfaces globally accessible is
against the idea of the strong host model. Current behavior is a
consequence when w
On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 15:59 +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:46:19PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 15:19 +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > > > I have an icinga-instance running
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:46:19PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 15:19 +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > > I have an icinga-instance running on openbsd.amsterdam. Here I found
> > > that sometimes check_p
On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 15:19 +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > I have an icinga-instance running on openbsd.amsterdam. Here I found
> > that sometimes check_ping from the monitoring-plugins package fails,
> > because ping(8) sends "f
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 10:18:51 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> uvm_fault() is one of the most contended "entry point" of the kernel.
> To reduce this contention I'm carefully refactoring this code to be able
> to push the KERNEL_LOCK() inside the fault handler.
>
> The first aim of this pro
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:20:32AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> I have an icinga-instance running on openbsd.amsterdam. Here I found
> that sometimes check_ping from the monitoring-plugins package fails,
> because ping(8) sends "failed to get receiving hop limit", but still
> receives all the
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:29:03 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> Diff below use C99 initializer and constify the various "struct uvm_pagerops"
> in tree.
>
> While here add some KERNEL_ASSERT_LOCKED() to places where the `uobj'
> locking has been removed and that should be revisited. This is
Diff below use C99 initializer and constify the various "struct uvm_pagerops"
in tree.
While here add some KERNEL_ASSERT_LOCKED() to places where the `uobj'
locking has been removed and that should be revisited. This is to help
a future myself or another developer to look at what needs some love.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:49:22AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Currently we need to keep pf_rm_rule() under both locks. The function
> might be calling pf_tag_unref(), pf_dynaddr_remove()... which alter lists,
> which are currently supposed to be protected by PF_LOCK()/NET_LOCK(
I have an icinga-instance running on openbsd.amsterdam. Here I found
that sometimes check_ping from the monitoring-plugins package fails,
because ping(8) sends "failed to get receiving hop limit", but still
receives all the ping replies. These packets/annomalies are clearly
not meant for us.
Since
17 matches
Mail list logo
