On 10/3/19 10:56 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:42AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> On 10/3/19 10:19 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
On 10/3/19 9:21 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 20
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:55:51AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >
> > But even if the agent is wrong, I think it is dangerous to bindly trust the
> > other
> > side of accessing a memory chunk. Before using the value, it should be
> > checked
> > against the valid range to avoid uncontrolle
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:42AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 10/3/19 10:19 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >> On 10/3/19 9:21 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wro
On 10/3/19 10:33 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
Index: snmpc.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/snmp/snmpc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p
On 10/3/19 10:19 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> On 10/3/19 9:21 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >> Index: snmpc.c
> >> ===
> >> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/snmp/snmpc.c,v
> >> retrieving revision 1.11
> >> diff -u -p -r1.11 snmpc.c
> >> --- snmpc.c18 Sep
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:01:06AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 10/3/19 9:21 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >> On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I reckon this will be on of the last majo
On 10/3/19 9:21 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I reckon this will be on of the last major additions.
>>> Adding "snmp set" allows us to run snmpd's regress without ins
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:33:11PM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I reckon this will be on of the last major additions.
> > Adding "snmp set" allows us to run snmpd's regress without installing
> > netsnmp. :-)
> >
> > Tested with
Anyone willing to look into this one?
Or someone objecting to me committing this?
On 9/26/19 2:33 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I reckon this will be on of the last major additions.
>> Adding "snmp set" allows us to run snmpd's regress
On 9/26/19 9:54 AM, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I reckon this will be on of the last major additions.
> Adding "snmp set" allows us to run snmpd's regress without installing
> netsnmp. :-)
>
> Tested with snmpd's regress test.
>
> Majority of diff is moving oid/value parsing from snmp
Hello,
I reckon this will be on of the last major additions.
Adding "snmp set" allows us to run snmpd's regress without installing
netsnmp. :-)
Tested with snmpd's regress test.
Majority of diff is moving oid/value parsing from snmp trap to a
separate function.
OK?
martijn@
Index: snmp.1
12 matches
Mail list logo
