From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 02:58:08 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955AB33E42B for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 02:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfix86@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qHKW4KGRz4HKN for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 02:58:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alfix86@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id l10so13356902wrr.10 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:58:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BBVuEc7UBo918+LY3DuxSnRj/loL5FAbd7fVMoiQ1ZQ=; b=AxXh/oawBXrS8thdr6ypsTnz05hUDDTRSzPVEzWxCuQFZowz4bYenOLDgU6QkXuOha AM1BeJwXq9bRPuphfXoetK78ufPwL+lYoGHqfRAsackUtsZBqN5hKR17fBel7FuTp569 BOfcJf2E5GprEQJsMVxq4wpVVfqQ50FOf7ad+WifCwhFsTo2mY7Gnv6UoClwxgiaouQF 7r/hX9t+lfy1u9rVsFlNNGi5KudCxYU6gV3HNPzoHRBITHgFMiUXgPcJUBzuvqBMKixN Ggb98g+KYQRf04LoXgoZfyYbIbPNXrurs3u/SUArnzvun14O3n0c9281vJsVUpsh9ZVh IpOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BBVuEc7UBo918+LY3DuxSnRj/loL5FAbd7fVMoiQ1ZQ=; b=OIx9HIsgXtLqY8rqo5B/LkpvKT4ZuMapP8IFvKlooPOhe8qU8P2jJcmKwM9vH52PS0 pGMf48NqYAT3XDuu3isstJioLmpLdLyyWfyr6+lFRW0jyDl35K07WxLt/VuGM0+EdxFj H1nXLQG1OauVsZHXT836RhOcNUctHhgK+b9mHADoEV0AMtomWGs9WiOvfBpGZINT3EiB oEsa3FbyrGJ6b/PE/28+inXsvp86+9swP+X4TXeSiFDS1qSnE3sOUVsUNsXDzRZ8+79k 97whqLhYbg6t4m2C2n69OoqjbdNEQiYkM9bmUdItJz/et7IZ6eCq2PjBUe6SU+95IhnC p5vw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533aK70Kv9ReTmon++izBJZOl73FVWuxxor+/sBMBI7gtJCoMsUl Hq1yuI0JSMxfHA1fRhe+EfSLjpKo X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKbmhkxGwwYrnqL7G0elm8CCRqil8plCSVbShx7XzmBd6nbLhDSUcR4fuTM3gTU7zlImQbdw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4d8b:: with SMTP id b11mr11913137wru.341.1592708284951; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alfdeb (host-79-18-159-44.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.18.159.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm12496291wrp.45.2020.06.20.19.58.03 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 04:58:03 +0200 From: Alfonso Siciliano To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: An option to ignore sysctl CTLFLAG_ANYBODY Message-Id: <20200621045803.70a373337b6df186fabc54ac@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200618172721.GA28529@daemon> References: <20200618172721.GA28529@daemon> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qHKW4KGRz4HKN X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=AxXh/oaw; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of alfix86@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::434 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alfix86@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.74 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.22)[-0.219]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[79.18.159.44:received]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.003]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.02)[-1.019]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::434:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 02:58:08 -0000 On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:38:12 +0000 Teran McKinney wrote: > I have tried that and it does work. The problem is that even a > simple read call like `sysctl hw.ncpu` will return an error for > non-root users. Which, while not essential, would be nice to > keep. This new change to kern_sysctl.c should solve the problem: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c#L2122 from /* Is this sysctl writable by only privileged users? */ if (req->newptr && !(oid->oid_kind & CTLFLAG_ANYBODY)) { to /* * Is this sysctl writable? Does it belong to the undocumented interface * or sysctlinfo? */ if (req->newptr && !(SYSCTL_CHILDREN(&sysctl___sysctl) == oid->oid_parent)) { Testing % uname -K 1300093 % sysctl hw.ncpu hw.ncpu: 1 % nsysctl -NatGv hw.snd.default_unit hw.snd.default_unit: integer: RD WR RW ANYBODY TUN RDTUN RWTUN NOFETCH: 0 % sysctl hw.snd.default_unit hw.snd.default_unit: 0 % sysctl hw.snd.default_unit=1 hw.snd.default_unit: 0 sysctl: hw.snd.default_unit=1: Operation not permitted Alfonso --- Alfonso S. Siciliano http://alfix.gitlab.io From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 12:21:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4FF34CB5E for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49qWqb0h2yz3bsw for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 157C934CE8A; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1541834CD92 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qWqZ0F9Xz3bfv for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yuripv@yuripv.dev) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6C82B2B for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:12:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yuripv.dev; h=to :from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=1kvdMK3LeYyX7lUd3+mvbfAfHO J0M+gD9cUzx8O8cg8=; b=QMFv9/qEjqfOZbVf7QbImraGphEyb/nuGAd67NKIF4 LA1fz4zFv8CxRmtyFKQMVWepT27ibF/Fy7YLUPm7XxV7fZjuDJlos8njR6vMt+hj 39xblnWKZCLnhwU4E6hfDtM/Po6yU1a5VOw3Sr2WG6JGFfMEXSp/7kaK7g6ojM05 69N/elcRAr6e+vpatQNslQPCpEqrvgH0eLOkvVwuMkeMNu62nAIGTjnNcrzfMA+h VKQK6Q9IuJT8hm1e7YlCMrtqdxzrNFSaUoF9q4+MdHrfNlAHLGVM9HCleOxwaZJw TJoGi0PmxrhoE253XQqmaMibl1RiIoG139bG7ik5JtCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=1kvdMK 3LeYyX7lUd3+mvbfAfHOJ0M+gD9cUzx8O8cg8=; b=otB+82lU6mCs1OPlwInAAi doEBLYwaeKVt5CYwB/X8TNPVm2JxuamIrSPQji9SvV+vS57epSytgX+QlhTpfu3L IFeZnzrCt7quk1FqWFig9lfn/EVOUCF3p8bYDgyOqDqJrmWnNKJxpbxkKAxUMkca M0iLCVgFTMj1yxkSAHQj2Zi3jS/1iG1tjXtIPutuU/nq19oA5o+LhQVqNopr0C2E pQVChO2y1gVEV+OM3EFob8S6Wt9iqEy2Wt8CPB4OlCcCOjfmYSwmSAl/hnaIH9l5 67bbH94Aa053PwjU7do+Gqasqi2eFqi4Byev45NRn2OUOEXRRMdMD0SE1/KAmPaA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudektddghedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefvhffukffffgggtgfgsehtjeertd dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpegjuhhrihcurfgrnhhkohhvuceohihurhhiphhvseihuhhrihhp vhdruggvvheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeejgedthfefffekleffiedtgfefkeeggf ejtddtfeejudehleffueekjeetleefnecuffhomhgrihhnpehfrhgvvggsshgurdhorhhg necukfhppeeluddrvdegtddruddvgedrudefjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeihuhhrihhpvheshihurhhiphhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [91.240.124.137]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DD3463066D9E for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:12:29 -0400 (EDT) To: hackers@freebsd.org From: Yuri Pankov Subject: hpwstate_intel(4) cosmetic fix review Message-ID: <64728574-5ff6-c524-1d31-7ca3803f8522@yuripv.dev> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:12:27 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qWqZ0F9Xz3bfv X-Spamd-Bar: ++++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=yuripv.dev header.s=fm1 header.b=QMFv9/qE; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=otB+82lU; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of yuripv@yuripv.dev designates 64.147.123.24 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yuripv@yuripv.dev X-Spamd-Result: default: False [6.39 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(0.00)[+ip4:64.147.123.24:c]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yuripv.dev:+,messagingengine.com:+]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:64.147.123.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[64.147.123.24:from]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_XBL(5.00)[91.240.124.137:received]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(0.00)[yuripv.dev:s=fm1,messagingengine.com:s=fm3]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.26)[0.262]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[hackers@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[yuripv.dev]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.28)[0.284]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; BAD_REP_POLICIES(0.10)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.95)[0.948]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[64.147.123.24:from]; GREYLIST(0.00)[pass,body] X-Spam: Yes X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:21:31 -0000 https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24744 A fix for hwpstate_intel(4) unconditionally printing the error message, seen on e.g. i9-10900X. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 15:05:21 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB1D352311 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:05:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@puchar.net) Received: from puchar.net (puchar.net [194.1.144.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qbSc4w1Zz46ng for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:05:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@puchar.net) Received: Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by puchar.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05LF5ICM004941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:05:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from puchar-wojtek@puchar.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=puchar.net; s=default; t=1592751919; bh=nepVc/h5GwPYp5q9BWKV3E51tqX0spnf1BrRGjGvReU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=rAPJYGZEeWqhncncgdi95Rtnng24zhzeQLFtizW7Iklfe8D+OTeLXVJuMW4UCfr3d RKCd2H9GHzl2KT3vYo3mfWMxYBzKe6xyxNhuw8+VgoDMXJvoC4VN0KmmDP0tfn3B+z pkoIWoGo+tgAFQ/02i8czkZjCltKG9fC0KStPjxU= Received: from localhost (puchar-wojtek@localhost) by puchar.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 05LF5IsH004934 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:05:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from puchar-wojtek@puchar.net) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:05:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: updated to latest 12 - max size of swap device Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qbSc4w1Zz46ng X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=puchar.net header.s=default header.b=rAPJYGZE; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wojtek@puchar.net designates 194.1.144.90 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=wojtek@puchar.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.31 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.39)[-0.391]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[puchar.net:s=default]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.58)[-0.579]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[puchar.net]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[puchar.net:-]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.04)[-0.042]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[194.1.144.90:from]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:43476, ipnet:194.1.144.0/24, country:PL]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:05:21 -0000 after updating to latest 12.1-STABLE i've got a message Jun 21 15:09:55 <0.2> puchar kernel: WARNING: reducing swap size to maximum of 65536MB per unit why such a limit? i simply removed by 120GB swap partition and made 2 60GB. it works, but why such a limit? From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 20:52:23 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB49332B04; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:52:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward500o.mail.yandex.net (forward500o.mail.yandex.net [37.140.190.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ql8z6PWxz4Zlk; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:52:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from mxback16g.mail.yandex.net (mxback16g.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1472:2741:0:8b7:316]) by forward500o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id A83BB60095; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:52:15 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback16g.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id zan0fZizPg-qFgGgbAE; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:52:15 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1592772735; bh=9xWZRz/fiIIh8psvTGoCgbdo7W/XzmiVFJzv1iJVKfU=; h=Message-Id:Date:Subject:To:From; b=begypto7NfarKx0voVYOBy+TMCqRp6oTA+tm7di+rSSqimX282c44Y1JBV7VUSTjZ OZ/GgpMY1m1VuIvtEi87Bqa3z5QqdaO5p3OLg/+7kHnPgZAcU6YftQDHHWYrMbA7wK w00j6gf6JMEjYug0hE2DFIB2e6kwDl05m1NzPKsM= Received: by sas8-93eeb7dac565.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:52:14 +0300 From: Alexander V. Chernikov Envelope-From: melifaro@ipfw.ru To: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers Subject: net.inet6.ip6.deembed_scopeid removal X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:52:14 +0100 Message-Id: <626011592740709@mail.yandex.ru> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49ql8z6PWxz4Zlk X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=begypto7; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 37.140.190.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.46 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.016]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.01)[-1.007]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:37.140.128.0/18]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; MIME_BASE64_TEXT(0.10)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.54)[-0.535]; MIME_HTML_ONLY(0.20)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[37.140.190.195:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:~]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13238, ipnet:37.140.128.0/18, country:RU]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[37.140.190.195:from] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:52:25 -0000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 21:10:11 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FA63343AA; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward500o.mail.yandex.net (forward500o.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::610]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qlYY5mQ6z4dbY; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:10:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from mxback11q.mail.yandex.net (mxback11q.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0e:1b4:0:640:1f0c:10f2]) by forward500o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 9789560271; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:10:05 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback11q.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id TFmiyBxwDr-A5d8jKxO; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:10:05 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1592773805; bh=TS0jrS5jUdXWVvGUuGphirAta648X8DmAsnipM2Oydo=; h=References:Date:Message-Id:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=RTW8CDWHuGk6D5M+J2Qh8FiOFuwoVqzdPCCK8c7/q7ibF6RtUfFCncNhZCpaazjLP ii5UUqsbevQmprciA3pCS3I5FJsNOBFPdT1OXuA3x25g7bDzGhq6eNTPvczJsg8W08 n6Cl42+n+Fx0uR6nhGXgoqdgJW+oQJI/8HR/lkwo= Received: by vla1-5413378edd9f.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:10:04 +0300 From: Alexander V. Chernikov To: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers In-Reply-To: <626011592740709@mail.yandex.ru> References: <626011592740709@mail.yandex.ru> Subject: Re: net.inet6.ip6.deembed_scopeid removal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:10:04 +0100 Message-Id: <645741592773762@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qlYY5mQ6z4dbY X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=RTW8CDWH; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::610 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.88 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.01)[-1.012]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a02:6b8:0:1000::/52:c]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[ipfw.ru]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.04)[-1.045]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.22)[-0.221]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13238, ipnet:2a02:6b8::/32, country:RU]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::610:from] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:10:11 -0000 [re-sending email with as non-html] Hey, I would like to deprecate net.inet6.ip6.deembed_scopeid sysctl while leaving the current default behaviour. This sysctl controls whether IPv6 scope is embedded in the IPv6 address or not when reading or writing route/interface/ifaddr data via rtsock/sysctl. Embedding scope in the address is a hack, that overwrites some of the bits that can be used otherwise. It was probably implemented that way to simplify route table interactions, as rtable uses this hack to add link-local addresses to the same radix tree. The change to fix the userland api by filling in sin6_scopeid and avoid touching IPv6 address was added in r243187, 7 years ago. It provided the sysctl in question, allowing to preserve compatibility with older applications, by reverting to the old behavior. 7 years looks like enough timeframe for the applications to be adjusted. Unless any major objections arise, I'm going to remove the code and make de-embedded IPv6 addresses the only option on July 5 2020. /Alexander From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 22:02:10 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D71336685 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:02:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sega01@go-beyond.org) Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qmjY5rgtz3TyX for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:02:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sega01@go-beyond.org) Received: from [160.3.200.8] (port=20821 helo=localhost) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jn82P-00085i-B0; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:02:06 +0100 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:02:00 +0000 From: Teran McKinney To: Alfonso Siciliano Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: An option to ignore sysctl CTLFLAG_ANYBODY Message-ID: <20200621220200.GA55789@daemon> References: <20200618172721.GA28529@daemon> <20200621045803.70a373337b6df186fabc54ac@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200621045803.70a373337b6df186fabc54ac@gmail.com> X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qmjY5rgtz3TyX X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of sega01@go-beyond.org designates 2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=sega01@go-beyond.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.41 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1098::86:1000:0:2:1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.06)[-1.058]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[go-beyond.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.46)[-0.461]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:44684, ipnet:2a00:1098::/32, country:GB]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1:from] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:02:10 -0000 On 2020-06-21 04-58-03 , Alfonso Siciliano wrote: > This new change to kern_sysctl.c should solve the problem: > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c#L2122 > from > /* Is this sysctl writable by only privileged users? */ > if (req->newptr && !(oid->oid_kind & CTLFLAG_ANYBODY)) { > to > /* > * Is this sysctl writable? Does it belong to the undocumented interface > * or sysctlinfo? > */ > if (req->newptr && !(SYSCTL_CHILDREN(&sysctl___sysctl) == oid->oid_parent)) { > > > Testing > > % uname -K > 1300093 > % sysctl hw.ncpu > hw.ncpu: 1 > % nsysctl -NatGv hw.snd.default_unit > hw.snd.default_unit: integer: RD WR RW ANYBODY TUN RDTUN RWTUN NOFETCH: 0 > % sysctl hw.snd.default_unit > hw.snd.default_unit: 0 > % sysctl hw.snd.default_unit=1 > hw.snd.default_unit: 0 > sysctl: hw.snd.default_unit=1: Operation not permitted > > > Alfonso > > --- > Alfonso S. Siciliano > http://alfix.gitlab.io > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Hi Alfonso, Your patch works perfectly. Thank you so much! I appreciate it. Sincerely, Teran From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 23:05:48 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25054337D89; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:05:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward501j.mail.yandex.net (forward501j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:801:2::111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qp6y1ZmMz3Yw1; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:05:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from mxback10q.mail.yandex.net (mxback10q.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0e:1b4:0:640:b6ef:cb3]) by forward501j.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id D44BF3380064; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 02:05:41 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback10q.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id pZBTlDF1YE-5fd82uEr; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 02:05:41 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1592780741; bh=gkgovdBpraTb6swxB2MuufFuBSYbNOP8Lq58pZhBCSU=; h=Message-Id:Date:Subject:To:From; b=mOTxj2WLj/wxAeVTxnalSCJjfo3kQv2spc4Awyms4PwUKadsSPyyBtTmgCGNaEnB4 CTno6+U+77PvMxUbXXcRokXjGBjZW0WcjO2/QZ7x59nh+8iuU+jlU7+e5/4apfVBYm JlN1z8u5fcOMOCNycr/mFWTGmtjBDso5xLQrYObg= Received: by vla1-b1f71bfb4f06.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 02:05:41 +0300 From: Alexander V. Chernikov Envelope-From: melifaro@ipfw.ru To: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers Subject: routed && route6d removal proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 00:05:41 +0100 Message-Id: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qp6y1ZmMz3Yw1 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=mOTxj2WL; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 2a02:6b8:0:801:2::111 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.35 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.01)[-1.011]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a02:6b8:0::/52]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.04)[-1.044]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.992]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[2a02:6b8:0:801:2::111:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13238, ipnet:2a02:6b8::/32, country:RU]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:05:48 -0000 Hey, I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. routed(8) is the daemon implementing RIPv2 routing protocol. route6d(8) is the daemon implementing RIPng routing protocol for IPv6. RIP [1] was one of the first protocols used in the networking. The first version was implemented back in 1982. 1. Network landscape has changed since then. BGP, OSPF, IS-ISIS and other routing protocols have been created and greatly improved over years. People have created and adopted numerous designs leveraging OSPF/ISIS or BGP. RIP became obsolete a while ago as there were no competitive advantage it can offer. "It is the oldest routing protocol used by the network industry and is considered by many to be inefficient or border-line obsolete." — [2], 2009 "Today, the only reason you might run across a network running RIPv2 is either that the network is very old and in serious need of an upgrade or the network is running cheaper, consumer-grade routing hardware that can only support RIP" — [3], 2016. 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp or gobgp. Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or BGP speaker is the choice. FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained ports for these. Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantage. 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits to routed/route6d: sbin/routed: r327276 - coverity r317035 - rtsock fix r299825 - coverity r299822 - coverity, from netbsd r299821 - coverity, from netbsd r299784 - coverity, from netbsd r299771 - coverify, from netbsd r286347 - bugfix r276602 - SA14:21 patch r271919 - SA14:21 fix r215702 - logic fix, 2010 usr.sbin/route6d: r337500 - functional fix, 2018 r317035 - rtsock fix r311994 - coverity r311985 - coverity r299869 - coverity r299491 - coverity r270234 - link-local fix r243233 - functionality improvement, 2012 To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protocols exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. With all that in mind I propose to remove routed and route6d from base in FreeBSD 13. Timeline: June 5 - feedback aggregation and decision point July 19 - removal (proposed) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol [2] https://www.globalknowledge.com/ca-en/resources/resource-library/articles/basics-of-understanding-rip/ [3] https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routing-protocols [4] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=361897&namedcmd=routed_prs /Alexander From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 03:29:52 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB87C33D324; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:29:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com (mail-ot1-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qvzh2ZCPz44Lc; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:29:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id u23so11935744otq.10; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ivSe/ieUSju4bSGuMoz1momk6Jpx0rDzm0iUsxqxdFs=; b=kH9/fE7XN9f+Hn3Seu8RrfLGhI//Gc/eC1k1UCdwEsYfJqX0WxjI+KFhhW7SSYW5B7 FNpaEA/6TXmZW9BKBfF85lhTSO7LOziADNIj+qgy5YxdxjAUwqumFx3W3cbtHHLA4kuE w7V9Tat5YXluuF+lZG6umQz5eDvuBjhFggvhaOTGk4bWzWGYRJn/CfNXhreRtC2phdy6 aGlARgrsNgKQ4g1rc+AOb0N++DtFcIRaOXxojgsSYNad+QePxfeVePCZpUmYLhSX+c+M L12xFdX9nbnS8icwTz4K13A5sr3ycRrZyHV64FiRkXh98wBhzxu8vGGTqjw/tloelmS/ PmUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GpUKYG+02rJe8SqPXVR34k2jFXqBTxexQPnAedRkqsjv4+EV4 UjIYDKpYr+xah/HaUL5I08Ojdzns X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycfF1rt4HhD2kbJRpLdWdU7+z6uWIQaL38YwkfYmb4Htu6aGTXQI3VIvaTPyq58KaQ0QQ/cQ== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:80c:: with SMTP id 12mr12529624oty.208.1592796590787; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-f49.google.com (mail-ot1-f49.google.com. [209.85.210.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h22sm1113476oos.48.2020.06.21.20.29.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-f49.google.com with SMTP id d4so11961069otk.2; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2224:: with SMTP id o33mr12629681ota.216.1592796590201; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> Reply-To: cem@freebsd.org From: Conrad Meyer Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 20:29:39 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" Cc: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qvzh2ZCPz44Lc X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:29:52 -0000 Sounds good to me. We don't need a RIP daemon in base, and if needed, it is just a pkg install away via one of the myrriad maintained routing daemons. Thanks, Conrad On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:06 PM Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > Hey, > > I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. > > routed(8) is the daemon implementing RIPv2 routing protocol. > route6d(8) is the daemon implementing RIPng routing protocol for IPv6. > > RIP [1] was one of the first protocols used in the networking. The first= version was implemented back in 1982. > > 1. Network landscape has changed since then. BGP, OSPF, IS-ISIS and other= routing protocols have been created and greatly improved over years. Peopl= e have created and adopted numerous designs leveraging OSPF/ISIS or BGP. > RIP became obsolete a while ago as there were no competitive advantage it= can offer. > "It is the oldest routing protocol used by the network industry and is co= nsidered by many to be inefficient or border-line obsolete." =E2=80=94 [2],= 2009 > "Today, the only reason you might run across a network running RIPv2 is e= ither that the network is very old and in serious need of an upgrade or the= network is running cheaper, consumer-grade routing hardware that can only = support RIP" =E2=80=94 [3], 2016. > > 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation descr= ibed above, one does expect far wider functionality from the program named = "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. > > 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol includin= g RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only designs in are ga= ining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp or gobgp. Nowadays, if= one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or BGP speaker is the choice. = FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained ports for these. Having RIP[ng] s= peakers in base offers no advantage. > > 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an addit= ional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits to routed= /route6d: > > sbin/routed: > r327276 - coverity > r317035 - rtsock fix > r299825 - coverity > r299822 - coverity, from netbsd > r299821 - coverity, from netbsd > r299784 - coverity, from netbsd > r299771 - coverify, from netbsd > r286347 - bugfix > r276602 - SA14:21 patch > r271919 - SA14:21 fix > r215702 - logic fix, 2010 > > usr.sbin/route6d: > r337500 - functional fix, 2018 > r317035 - rtsock fix > r311994 - coverity > r311985 - coverity > r299869 - coverity > r299491 - coverity > r270234 - link-local fix > r243233 - functionality improvement, 2012 > > To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protoco= ls exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. > > With all that in mind I propose to remove routed and route6d from base in= FreeBSD 13. > Timeline: > June 5 - feedback aggregation and decision point > July 19 - removal (proposed) > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol > [2] https://www.globalknowledge.com/ca-en/resources/resource-library/arti= cles/basics-of-understanding-rip/ > [3] https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routi= ng-protocols > [4] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=3Drunnamed&list= _id=3D361897&namedcmd=3Drouted_prs > > /Alexander > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 03:59:28 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8CB33EE9A; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:59:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qwdp1QVlz46GZ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:59:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05M3xDbS005159 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:59:17 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: melifaro@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadv@dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05M3x4f3027888 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:59:04 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" , "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <7f5ee577-038f-4201-5abd-b562dbca61ec@grosbein.net> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 10:59:03 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qwdp1QVlz46GZ X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.20 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.58)[-0.580]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.48)[-0.476]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.05)[-0.046]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 03:59:28 -0000 22.06.2020 6:05, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protocols exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. Too many reasons but one real one: it's broken since FreeBSD 4 at least when I tried to use it in production and was forced to move to quagga that was actively maintained that time. Go with removal. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 12:49:55 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806EA34A8FF; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:49:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49r8Pv2Tcbz4k19; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:49:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05MCnr93010398; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 05:49:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05MCnrKw010397; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 05:49:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal In-Reply-To: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 05:49:53 -0700 (PDT) CC: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49r8Pv2Tcbz4k19 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:49:55 -0000 > Hey, > > I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. I disagree with removal, as your analysis is flawed. > routed(8) is the daemon implementing RIPv2 routing protocol. > route6d(8) is the daemon implementing RIPng routing protocol for IPv6. > > RIP [1] was one of the first protocols used in the networking. The first version was implemented back in 1982. RIPv1 was implemented in 1982, RIPv2 became RFC2453 in November 1998, and is a current and valid IETF standard, STD56. It was updated by RFC4822 in February 2007. > > 1. Network landscape has changed since then. BGP, OSPF, IS-ISIS and other routing protocols have been created and greatly improved over years. People have created and adopted numerous designs leveraging OSPF/ISIS or BGP. > RIP became obsolete a while ago as there were no competitive advantage it can offer. > "It is the oldest routing protocol used by the network industry and is considered by many to be inefficient or border-line obsolete." ? [2], 2009 RIPv2 is not obosolete, and your reference is not authoritave on what is or is not an obsolete network protocol. I know of people using RIPv2 in networks. > "Today, the only reason you might run across a network running RIPv2 is either that the network is very old and in serious need of an upgrade or the network is running cheaper, consumer-grade routing hardware that can only support RIP" ? [3], 2016. Or there simply is no need for anything more complicated. RipV2 is a very simple protocol and works fine for small networks in many settings. > > 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. I'll agree the name is missleading, so change it, but removal on your false basis is not. > > 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp or gobgp. Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or BGP speaker is the choice. FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained ports for these. Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantage. Routing stacks? You mean routing daemons? Forcing users to install bir, frr or quagga when all they need, or have been using for a long time is in base ripv2 is not good for users. > 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits to routed/route6d: Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? > > sbin/routed: > r327276 - coverity > r317035 - rtsock fix > r299825 - coverity > r299822 - coverity, from netbsd > r299821 - coverity, from netbsd > r299784 - coverity, from netbsd > r299771 - coverify, from netbsd > r286347 - bugfix > r276602 - SA14:21 patch > r271919 - SA14:21 fix > r215702 - logic fix, 2010 > > usr.sbin/route6d: > r337500 - functional fix, 2018 > r317035 - rtsock fix > r311994 - coverity > r311985 - coverity > r299869 - coverity > r299491 - coverity > r270234 - link-local fix > r243233 - functionality improvement, 2012 > > To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protocols exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. > > With all that in mind I propose to remove routed and route6d from base in FreeBSD 13. > Timeline: > June 5 - feedback aggregation and decision point > July 19 - removal (proposed) > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol > [2] https://www.globalknowledge.com/ca-en/resources/resource-library/articles/basics-of-understanding-rip/ > [3] https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routing-protocols > [4] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=361897&namedcmd=routed_prs > > /Alexander > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 13:27:10 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D01534BD76; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:27:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49r9Ds1LP7z4n8f; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:27:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05MDQvLb011277 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:26:59 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadv@dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05MDQqhN031277 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:26:53 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Rodney W. Grimes" , "Alexander V. Chernikov" References: <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <960ce7d8-f964-a686-dd79-242145b3ae5c@grosbein.net> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:26:51 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49r9Ds1LP7z4n8f X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.32 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.84)[-0.845]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.88)[-0.883]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.49)[-0.492]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:27:10 -0000 22.06.2020 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? Have you actually tried running routed(8) as base for real network with loops, mix of p2p and ethernet-like interfaces, IPv4 aliases, need of offset-lists and with diameter about 6 hops? I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 13:54:38 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C7134C9B7; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49r9rZ1PRvz4qXB; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2400:4051:a743:3c00:16:ceff:fe34:2700]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hrs) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3214633254; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:40:15 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20200622.224015.2228079563921213662.hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: melifaro@ipfw.ru Cc: current@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet6.ip6.deembed_scopeid removal From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <645741592773762@mail.yandex.ru> References: <626011592740709@mail.yandex.ru> <645741592773762@mail.yandex.ru> X-Old-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-PGPkey-fingerprint: 6C0D 2353 27CF 80C7 901E FDD2 DBB0 7DC6 6F1F 737F X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_40_15_2020_216)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:38 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_40_15_2020_216)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote in <645741592773762@mail.yandex.ru>: me> [re-sending email with as non-html] me> me> Hey, me> me> I would like to deprecate net.inet6.ip6.deembed_scopeid sysctl while me> leaving the current default behaviour. me> me> This sysctl controls whether IPv6 scope is embedded in the IPv6 me> address or not when reading or writing route/interface/ifaddr data via me> rtsock/sysctl. me> me> Embedding scope in the address is a hack, that overwrites some of the me> bits that can be used otherwise. It was probably implemented that way me> to simplify route table interactions, as rtable uses this hack to add me> link-local addresses to the same radix tree. me> me> The change to fix the userland api by filling in sin6_scopeid and me> avoid touching IPv6 address was added in r243187, 7 years ago. It me> provided the sysctl in question, allowing to preserve compatibility me> with older applications, by reverting to the old behavior. me> me> 7 years looks like enough timeframe for the applications to be me> adjusted. Unless any major objections arise, I'm going to remove the me> code and make de-embedded IPv6 addresses the only option on July 5 me> 2020. I agree that it is time to remove it and I do not think we need to wait more. This knob was for debugging purpose rather than for keeping compatibility. A concern was that recovering the scopeid might have performance penalty. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_40_15_2020_216)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iMkEABMKAC4WIQRsDSNTJ8+Ax5Ae/dLbsH3Gbx9zfwUCXvC0vxAcaHJzQGZyZWVi c2Qub3JnAAoJENuwfcZvH3N/07gCCJDGMuuj3AcZoIfHbf+yrdGL/8Ox3/gnMw/C m3giiNCVHDSvWOgz/6/V+Tk0bOYuLcL95Y6V59sOIEojejYfm24fAgkBr48RfN4Z 8cTc1TGkjupVEebByICBQV4nAQYMj6naQd+A5nxOwZEfDsqpouqQmxLCVu/O5b2u rygd5E9CTMlJQPw= =suQy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_40_15_2020_216)---- From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 13:54:39 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A852634CC92; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49r9rb3z12z4q6W; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2400:4051:a743:3c00:16:ceff:fe34:2700]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hrs) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7643F32D7D; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:46:21 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20200622.224621.1160033569666141710.hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: melifaro@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> X-Old-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-PGPkey-fingerprint: 6C0D 2353 27CF 80C7 901E FDD2 DBB0 7DC6 6F1F 737F X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_46_21_2020_256)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:54:39 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_46_21_2020_256)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote in <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru>: me> Hey, me> me> I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. I am still using both of them in production environments because they work well at least for my configurations and most of promising alternatives are under GPL, not BSDL. Why do we need to rush to remove them? Discussion about whether we should keep or remove such old bits tends to be controversial when there is a user like me. I would agree with the removal if they were harmful or impossible to maintain, but would not for the reason that they are simply old and probably no one uses it today. Reason 1 and 2 look like the latter at least to me. "too old to be worth keeping" is a matter of degree. Uucp, rlogind, and timed should be removed (and were removed) because there are few non-FreeBSD platforms which support these protocols. RIP is still widely supported---just like FTP, which nowadays no one prefers to use and major www browsers are about to drop the support of---and not be considered an inherently vulnerable protocol like telnet. And keeping these daemons is not harmful even for users who want to use third-party routing daemons you listed. me> 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation me> described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the me> program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. I do not think this is a good reason to remove something nor people have got confused actually. If this is true, quagga or bird are much worse. me> 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol me> including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only me> designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp me> or gobgp. Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or me> BGP speaker is the choice. FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained me> ports for these. Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantage. me> me> 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an me> additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits me> to routed/route6d: I think this is a separate issue. What attack vectors which are known to be vulnerable do they have? The small commit counts are not equal to its unreliability. Older daemons such as ppp(8), dhclient(8), ftpd(8), or bootpd(8) have received few substantial changes in recent years because they are mature. I am not a strong protester and will be happy to keep them as ports if everyone wants to remove them and it will happen, but I would like consistent criteria on removing software in the base system (they do not need to be perfect nor strict, though). I believe harmfulness is more important than the fact that it is old or we have more choices in the ports tree. If we have negative factors on maintaining them, removing them would be one of the choices as a result. If the existing routed/route6d makes difficulty on people who want to use third-party routing daemons, it should be fixed. These kind of harmfulness look below the threshold to me at this moment though I may be biased because I am still using them today... -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_46_21_2020_256)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iMkEABMKAC4WIQRsDSNTJ8+Ax5Ae/dLbsH3Gbx9zfwUCXvC2LRAcaHJzQGZyZWVi c2Qub3JnAAoJENuwfcZvH3N/CMoCAwU3QXmLf0e6VHa4PKuZaDhhGrYPIu8NDMyA 1cifIfh2FZZZ9zKRnbag7ruFlWGHdiwXdznVKJPElL3n1NM2IdFlAgkBgStnQlfP hI2LJd+sQihZYyltMumHnbaAUcrfq+NlfFSKjUvYcO9dnS+bzRK4HEd6FDr58L5d 9YydnNdsQXzK1UA= =j9L7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jun_22_22_46_21_2020_256)---- From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 19:26:22 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8117B338ADF; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:26:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rKCK628rz4FbH; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:26:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05MJQJug011868; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05MJQJwC011867; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal In-Reply-To: <960ce7d8-f964-a686-dd79-242145b3ae5c@grosbein.net> To: Eugene Grosbein Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0700 (PDT) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" , "Alexander V. Chernikov" , "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rKCK628rz4FbH X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.73 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.13)[-0.134]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.16)[0.162]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.20)[-0.197]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 19:26:22 -0000 > 22.06.2020 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? > > Have you actually tried running routed(8) as base for real network with loops, > mix of p2p and ethernet-like interfaces, IPv4 aliases, need of offset-lists and > with diameter about 6 hops? As I said I know of people that are running and it is working, and Hiroko's post clearly establishes that as fact in evidence. I am not even sure that RIP* has loop detection in the protocol, as the prefered routing protocol for anything multipath (which is what loops are in effect) is OSPF. > > I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. > Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. And your PR# for reporting the bug is? -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 20:05:32 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD2433ACF9 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:05:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mailgate.Leidinger.net (bastille.leidinger.net [89.238.82.207]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rL4W44sGz4MVp for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:05:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p5b1654af.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.22.84.175]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgate.Leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9693C9E46 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:05:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A80016192 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:05:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:05:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20200622220518.Horde.wiJxNPDxmPl65JMVmIXHgrP@webmail.leidinger.net> From: Alexander Leidinger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting patches reviewed as an outside contributor In-Reply-To: <5901295552e451c57f7717ea989a7084@neelc.org> Accept-Language: de,en Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_3NdurjRdya4yEEa4bFPT1wo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rL4W44sGz4MVp X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.45 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[leidinger.net:s=outgoing-alex]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.01)[-1.006]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MIME_GOOD(-0.20)[multipart/signed,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.04)[-1.038]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[leidinger.net:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[leidinger.net,quarantine]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.31)[-0.306]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:34240, ipnet:89.238.64.0/18, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[91.22.84.175:received] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:05:32 -0000 This message is in MIME format and has been PGP signed. --=_3NdurjRdya4yEEa4bFPT1wo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quoting Neel Chauhan (from Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:02:00 -0700= ): > Hi, > > I have many patches, focusing on the TCP/IP stack on Phabricator. > > Some of them are accepted, but not committed. Most are stuck as=20=20 >=20needs review. And many of these patches are only a few lines/trivial. > > For instance, on my Phabricator: > > * My account: https://reviews.freebsd.org/p/neel_neelc.org/ > * My patches: https://reviews.freebsd.org/people/revisions/5933/ > > Would these patches get reviewed eventually? Is there anything I can=20= =20 >=20do to speed up the process? Or is this something I need to be=20=20 >=20patient about? What helps is to send a mail to freebsd-net@freebsd.org and to ask for=20= =20 review/commit.=20Include a little description of what your patch=20=20 fixes/improves.=20If this doesn't result in a respose, you can also have=20= =20 a=20look at the commit log of the area you patch, and send a few people=20= =20 which=20worked in this area recently a mail and ask if they could have a=20= =20 review=20of your patch. Bye, Alexander. --=20 http://www.Leidinger.net=20Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF --=_3NdurjRdya4yEEa4bFPT1wo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAABAgAGBQJe8Q7+AAoJEBINsJsD+NiG2fcQAIpRrw45zdUvvnzpeNRDqYkC e+kG8WCimOBGB2TFbFC0yf9xVZmFjQ1UHq2D8Wn/FEwv/VY0SqcSAQW6+6XgvCTY WCyy6ZPAKTGPUd3x3WUAmE13PSWMVd9GOpKsAuCWYfYnUkXrqCNLAlf86Ca1+M8I zk/IcaS/Wp3pHj/yIOXMno8z5g0zLRCjOOLZDOb8UWq14ZVxJTLkbfjZxayqoIMr mYsExFSu1p3MJ8ycynJ/1mdS/8n3KynYkBYX3qwc4DvcTzR5Y7LS3uVxldKTGjt6 74vyums1IAu9wz9UhLf3btBJ1Y/yXGagZot5hnqJ6cXSLN68d8+H5FWpTozIy3Cy DZ9QWmq/61PCz8ZB67RG0D9GtGD/8D1jBOO1H3oXXZQhsEb0tnGQpVywwAYLPzQS 9Ub1lzEgs6TUMvoTqJcHv6lwDSB/ZNnyAirjcsvfeMHgVw0JYvBCjd9GrGrqbz1V VIuGp2HoMcYaoiVkBYpeS8LB6Qegk0P3Ivm469HycI0jANCnVv11cdTR17TJW3S0 lZsAMgEiUXEBJS1E1SEm76pjoz7SqubwE79VGjYtNdLjqvLjOvzIF4nfVDqCRIWN wVFL8ZtzQ34VpqLsk/iPySNtkleIqTnNg6DBBRepu5dHkbmFRIb3abEexPcV+eQG iOB+tB03WbNoK2qIBD7f =vATh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_3NdurjRdya4yEEa4bFPT1wo-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jun 22 20:33:17 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B13933B49C; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:33:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rLhX3mrGz4NnR; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:33:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05MKXBts016615 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:33:11 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05MKX6fl035520 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:33:06 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Rodney W. Grimes" References: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:33:00 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rLhX3mrGz4NnR X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.81 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.90)[-0.901]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.90)[-0.900]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.09)[0.089]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 20:33:17 -0000 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> 22.06.2020 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? >> Have you actually tried running routed(8) as base for real network with loops, >> mix of p2p and ethernet-like interfaces, IPv4 aliases, need of offset-lists and >> with diameter about 6 hops? > > As I said I know of people that are running and it is working, and > Hiroko's post clearly establishes that as fact in evidence. > > I am not even sure that RIP* has loop detection in the protocol, It has, of course. > as the prefered routing protocol for anything multipath (which > is what loops are in effect) is OSPF. RIPv2 may be used for failover, not for multipath. Any redundant route creates L3 "multipath". >> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. >> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. > > And your PR# for reporting the bug is? Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 04:46:34 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00566348939 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:46:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from rainpuddle.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [IPv6:2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rYdj1yNGz40JR for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:46:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from mail.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [IPv6:2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622]) by rainpuddle.neelc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C662EB493; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 21:46:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neelc.org; s=mail; t=1592887590; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/bEucr0GkxVJfKaJEjvpJ56oVfK253F/tJLmW8OHe/Y=; b=SDvduszcYWFROzH9uQYAUBdp77C6wUU6hMxyGnnFDu2jutui7ajd4O6hHbRX6g4fYMvpDS TfDHzdWQ+5+bKZDImKZQrSN16GMrCq3lw55rd6DUnXDZpER0rv+svtrMRPIeME1SmVfCFp IgHeAd/kkpDb20fc9WkHr3dk6zkxPe29PpC/Vd8SANqRDxK+ixHDSDCssunb0Gk5KlTAzo DJk1lzQ1K8rgnThtTn3LZurC7IVw3cBjAnW7SCDqq+PzPlXB4a5jjdhLEM4hcE9CCQBpXs 7sBglEjC+b63znJnd1ebaftk7/X4TzeiXa/1Rz7PLw+bvD0y9WUAO3LbS3t4pQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 21:46:30 -0700 From: Neel Chauhan To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting patches reviewed as an outside contributor In-Reply-To: <20200622220518.Horde.wiJxNPDxmPl65JMVmIXHgrP@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20200622220518.Horde.wiJxNPDxmPl65JMVmIXHgrP@webmail.leidinger.net> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.2 Message-ID: X-Sender: neel@neelc.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rYdj1yNGz40JR X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=neelc.org header.s=mail header.b=SDvduszc; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=neelc.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of neel@neelc.org designates 2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=neel@neelc.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.53 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[neelc.org:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.976]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.03)[-1.029]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[neelc.org:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[neelc.org,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.63)[-0.629]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:20473, ipnet:2001:19f0:8000::/38, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:46:34 -0000 Alexander, Thank you so much for the advice. I have sent the email to freebsd-net@. No response yet (I just sent it). -Neel Chauhan https://www.neelc.org/ On 2020-06-22 13:05, Alexander Leidinger via freebsd-hackers wrote: > Quoting Neel Chauhan (from Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:02:00 > -0700): > >> Hi, >> >> I have many patches, focusing on the TCP/IP stack on Phabricator. >> >> Some of them are accepted, but not committed. Most are stuck as needs >> review. And many of these patches are only a few lines/trivial. >> >> For instance, on my Phabricator: >> >> * My account: https://reviews.freebsd.org/p/neel_neelc.org/ >> * My patches: https://reviews.freebsd.org/people/revisions/5933/ >> >> Would these patches get reviewed eventually? Is there anything I can >> do to speed up the process? Or is this something I need to be patient >> about? > > What helps is to send a mail to freebsd-net@freebsd.org and to ask for > review/commit. Include a little description of what your patch > fixes/improves. If this doesn't result in a respose, you can also have > a look at the commit log of the area you patch, and send a few people > which worked in this area recently a mail and ask if they could have > a review of your patch. > > Bye, > Alexander. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 05:33:42 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB659349877; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 05:33:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rZh55b1Bz42Gw; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 05:33:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05N5XdP6013965; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:33:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05N5XdsD013964; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:33:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202006230533.05N5XdsD013964@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal In-Reply-To: <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> To: Eugene Grosbein Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:33:39 -0700 (PDT) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" , "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rZh55b1Bz42Gw X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.76 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.37)[-0.369]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.38)[0.382]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.15)[-0.150]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 05:33:42 -0000 > 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > >> 22.06.2020 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >>> Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? > >> Have you actually tried running routed(8) as base for real network with loops, > >> mix of p2p and ethernet-like interfaces, IPv4 aliases, need of offset-lists and > >> with diameter about 6 hops? > > > > As I said I know of people that are running and it is working, and > > Hiroko's post clearly establishes that as fact in evidence. > > > > I am not even sure that RIP* has loop detection in the protocol, > > It has, of course. Slight miss communications, there really isnt a loop detection in the on wire protocol, or multipath support, it simply excludes certain routes that end up excluded by counting to infinity to stop the loop (inifinity is usually 16 for this solution). Its not like OSPF or BGP where you can calculate loops and mulipath effects. Bottom line, RipV2 is not healthy on a network when loops exist, though it should not lead to failure. > > > as the prefered routing protocol for anything multipath (which > > is what loops are in effect) is OSPF. > > RIPv2 may be used for failover, not for multipath. Any redundant route creates L3 "multipath". Yes. > >> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. > >> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. > > > > And your PR# for reporting the bug is? > > Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 > Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, > so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. I can not find any commit linked to that bug, but this is probalby before the system to do that existed. Unless we can confirm the bug still exists I think it would be predunt to assume it is fixed based on what I read in the PR, so dismissing the claim that the inbase routed "just glitches." Can you agree with that logic Eugene? Regards, -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 07:23:51 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E777534BF1C for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:23:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gbe@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rd7C5vNrz47nG; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:23:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gbe@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (p4fd3af72.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.211.175.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: gbe) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84C9B13396; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:23:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gbe@freebsd.org) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:23:48 +0200 From: Gordon Bergling To: Allan Jude Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Constant load of 1 on a recent 12-STABLE Message-ID: <20200623072332.GA54653@lion.0xfce3.net> References: <20200603101607.GA80381@lion.0xfce3.net> <20200603202929.GA65032@lion.0xfce3.net> <8b1498ea-e343-506e-79c7-c25b594808f0@freebsd.org> <20200604123720.GA63595@lion.0xfce3.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200604123720.GA63595@lion.0xfce3.net> X-Url: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE amd64 X-Host-Uptime: 9:00AM up 16 mins, 3 users, load averages: 1.36, 1.21, 0.85 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:23:52 -0000 Hi Allan, On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:37:20PM +0200, Gordon Bergling wrote: > Hi Allan, > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 05:33:37PM -0400, Allan Jude wrote: > > On 2020-06-03 16:29, Gordon Bergling wrote: > > > Hi Allan, > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 03:13:47PM -0400, Allan Jude wrote: > > >> On 2020-06-03 06:16, Gordon Bergling via freebsd-hackers wrote: > > >>> since a while I am seeing a constant load of 1.00 on 12-STABLE, > > >>> but all CPUs are shown as 100% idle in top. > > >>> > > >>> Has anyone an idea what could caused this? > > >>> > > >>> The load seems to be somewhat real, since the buildtimes on this > > >>> machine for -CURRENT increased from about 2 hours to 3 hours. > > >>> > > >>> This a virtualized system running on Hyper-V, if that matters. > > >>> > > >>> Any hints are more then appreciated. > > >>> > > >> Try running 'top -SP' and see if that shows a specific CPU being busy, > > >> or a specific process using CPU time > > > > > > Below is the output of 'top -SP'. The only relevant process / thread that is > > > relatively constant consumes CPU time seams to be 'zfskern'. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > last pid: 68549; load averages: 1.10, 1.19, 1.16 up 0+14:59:45 22:17:24 > > > 67 processes: 2 running, 64 sleeping, 1 waiting > > > CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > > > CPU 1: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > > > CPU 2: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.6% idle > > > CPU 3: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > > > Mem: 108M Active, 4160M Inact, 33M Laundry, 3196M Wired, 444M Free > > > ARC: 1858M Total, 855M MFU, 138M MRU, 96K Anon, 24M Header, 840M Other > > > 461M Compressed, 1039M Uncompressed, 2.25:1 Ratio > > > Swap: 2048M Total, 2048M Free > > > > > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > > > 11 root 4 155 ki31 0B 64K RUN 0 47.3H 386.10% idle > > > 8 root 65 -8 - 0B 1040K t->zth 0 115:39 12.61% zfskern > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > The only key performance indicator that is relatively high IMHO, for a > > > non-busy system, are the context switches, that vmstat has reported. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > procs memory page disks faults cpu > > > r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id > > > 0 0 0 514G 444M 7877 2 7 0 9595 171 0 0 0 4347 43322 17 2 81 > > > 0 0 0 514G 444M 1 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 121 40876 0 0 100 > > > 0 0 0 514G 444M 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 133 42520 0 0 100 > > > 0 0 0 514G 444M 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 120 43830 0 0 100 > > > 0 0 0 514G 444M 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 132 42917 0 0 100 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Any other ideas what could generate that load? > > > > I agree that load average looks out of place here when you look at the % > > cpu idle, but I wonder if it is caused by a lot of short lived processes > > or threads. > > > > How quickly is the 'last pid' number going up? > > > > You might also look at `zpool iostat 1` or `gstat -p` to see how busy > > your disks are > > In the IDLE state the last pid isn't changing within at least 60 seconds. > During 'buildworld' times it is off course much shorter, but a "-j 4" is > resulting in a load average from about 5.0, so that the underlying problem > still persists. 'zpool iostat 1' and 'gstat -p' doesn't show anything > suspicious. > > I had a private mail that made me aware of PR173541, where this problem is > documentated. I'll add my hardware information and performance measurements > to it when I find some time. > > I am currently thinking about how to measure the spawned threads/s. Did you > have an idea how to do it? What is maybe also related to the problem is the following top output, collected by 'top -HS'. The three zfskern threads generate little load, but that constant. The annoying part of the problem is, that the load of 1 is reported and that the hostsystem schedules the thread over all 4 physical cores and keeps the clockrate at the highest frequency. PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 11 root 155 ki31 0B 64K CPU2 2 17:28 97.39% idle{idle: cpu2} 11 root 155 ki31 0B 64K CPU3 3 17:29 96.78% idle{idle: cpu3} 11 root 155 ki31 0B 64K CPU1 1 17:29 96.40% idle{idle: cpu1} 11 root 155 ki31 0B 64K RUN 0 17:25 96.13% idle{idle: cpu0} 8 root -8 - 0B 1040K mmp->m 2 0:44 4.32% zfskern{mmp_thread_enter} 8 root -8 - 0B 1040K mmp->m 1 0:44 4.28% zfskern{mmp_thread_enter} 8 root -8 - 0B 1040K mmp->m 3 0:44 4.25% zfskern{mmp_thread_enter} Does anyone has some insight where zfskern is spawned? I maybe can bisect then the resulting change which leads to this behaviour. --Gordon From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 13:37:51 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60953554E6; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:37:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rnQk3bBzz4Xj9; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:37:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05NDbXg9030259 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:37:37 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05NDbS2u042953 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:37:28 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Rodney W. Grimes" References: <202006230533.05N5XdsD013964@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: net , freebsd-hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 20:37:21 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202006230533.05N5XdsD013964@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rnQk3bBzz4Xj9 X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.53 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.74)[-0.735]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.12)[0.121]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.81)[-0.811]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:37:51 -0000 23.06.2020 12:33, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > Can you agree with that logic Eugene? I'm not against keeping routed(8) in the base while it has happy users raising voice for it. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 13:47:23 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A0B3559B7 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:47:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thj@freebsd.org) Received: from forward3-smtp.messagingengine.com (forward3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.237]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rndk617Hz4Y7j for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:47:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thj@freebsd.org) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailforward.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20ECB1940CE3; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:47:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=S19LD1 wrQDD0dM+Rfh4Zojk+t30DlhGANsre/auLGK8=; b=htd/yRXPtj82d5dYwW/Zt4 vgYLdQyeo78PCX0N8JD5mqd3wnc8ZUjfg+WPeNjsyr1apQ/6HFvauwO7xsQbZfyJ qUfCZYmpDe0v8y9HbM3MEARoMw1ZopXAh/OLOalJk9G7CR1V61agJGCQoJKh8oAh bJEOb8IT/tPGpBXyVk+s9rjtx9CcKWjKszH9CAJ6nILB6GH1gtJmRTJdiTS/7xwQ 1JJk+nPRfICEq3XRYsVKgBaK6FhOQuX2y09KYaHZunvSC61hSvU8w8zaeOKq3q5/ tM72Tb2Ar2zSxZLSbXbsy+z0hDxkH0r6GlRvKK5DDVEWF279J/5hhvP+fzqIsLrw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudekhedggeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvohhmucfl ohhnvghsuceothhhjhesfhhrvggvsghsugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepve evtefgieefueejudeiuefhgeeuheejudetveegkeeitdefleevgfekveejjeevnecuffho mhgrihhnpehfrhgvvggsshgurdhorhhgnecukfhppedufeejrdehtddrudejrdduvdenuc evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhjsehf rhgvvggsshgurdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk (tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.17.12]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0F18030674A8; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:45:06 +0100 From: Tom Jones To: Neel Chauhan Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting patches reviewed as an outside contributor Message-ID: <20200623134506.GE95874@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> References: <5901295552e451c57f7717ea989a7084@neelc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5901295552e451c57f7717ea989a7084@neelc.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rndk617Hz4Y7j X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:66.111.4.0/24, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:47:23 -0000 On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Neel Chauhan wrote: > Hi, > > I have many patches, focusing on the TCP/IP stack on Phabricator. > > Some of them are accepted, but not committed. Most are stuck as needs > review. And many of these patches are only a few lines/trivial. > > For instance, on my Phabricator: > > * My account: https://reviews.freebsd.org/p/neel_neelc.org/ > * My patches: https://reviews.freebsd.org/people/revisions/5933/ > > Would these patches get reviewed eventually? Is there anything I can do to > speed up the process? Or is this something I need to be patient about? > > In case you get confused I am NOT neel@FreeBSD despite a common first name, > only neel@[PERSONAL DOMAIN] where I am sending this email from. > Hi Neel, For any reviews in the transport area (tcp, sctp, udp, ip(ish)) you should add the transport group in phabricator and probably email the freebsd-transport list too. If you haven't any response after a week or so please email me (thj@freebsd.org) and I will raise them on the fortnightly transport call if I can't review myself. - Tom From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 13:59:47 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39259355D66 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josua.mayer97@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rnw16NLrz4ZBF for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josua.mayer97@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id h5so20662316wrc.7 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:autocrypt:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CJNIfDssa/DM+tbb1LGvHNEVELSI8Zn9kv7sCvP1vw4=; b=iC5FGvDyQk9G2Orj3GWTTwGtwsOfYa4O6L/7dY9aFnxY+dZPK1Wx5nc9sx2AEh+BBc jhCWcwwcxHIbILTP6D0YQyKp3PUu6roI+Lx0Gi+Xv+xRr7MhfA8UQvNqcS6FNE0ZVjei z97jTMYoFXlrk+b0aVX0f6bT9DErwuFAbJeJiBxYnNoQtEYKKfAZCp6UfWNRluDFJQJ2 Ts9QRGby4PZKC9ZDpXxQ2TQKkufP28YadYk9NiCxJ+mtIcYScrXofPMv9lcq6LRxqd8c i00WTN+FBzZdh+ISXhh2d1Uh9xBKJDd9CbBSiZMsBBX0/9ziaRhEDX3d2GV7hsx8l8iF Mp0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:autocrypt:message-id :date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CJNIfDssa/DM+tbb1LGvHNEVELSI8Zn9kv7sCvP1vw4=; b=IhmDCxPxCTVcKkTFN1M7uctJuJ+I/zSHmo4QBuCO8Ql0dfmHfvN2qhRGIxVm5mdDUe WRDLk/qURn5SPAqjFbRuQpxMaCnRquMPHIr9pg0uee8w/qPqsPhfkyQnvG7T/GvIUstt Z/iO07nZievRFXHxozdPuWWZFSO7wKjzczmJB2OINLbKC5O9uH26YEsIkA4bszRaQw0S crK9cUm803gdmtxOGLdZVXQU7nsY5V+nLA7GHPO929tvHJ4FdgqPplIGZxdIIvG6+zXd djZ2JSeFWQtx7RVPid29B/Sen6q3LkI+0p8iS7W53iJVxkhzaK6gVY3EkVeYJ+FeHar4 vyhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532bANDbssiP52p6W9VwClpjWDgISDSbGvobzliYgwT5pmqfRbKw j1qrdzYkJizESASqYFOTMaljEDqOEYU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWqLy1K9TH+XPAdyvo7WylXsxc2NiVNKflr3gbd6bm3g8cP2xATu0xBlttTznEqyLYfAbU+w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:edc8:: with SMTP id v8mr23702534wro.125.1592920783829; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2003:c6:1f3d:7510::f30? (p200300c61f3d75100000000000000f30.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:c6:1f3d:7510::f30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f2sm3730402wmj.39.2020.06.23.06.59.42 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> From: Josua Mayer Autocrypt: addr=josua.mayer97@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFtbYt4BEACysNSF+vmzzBvR+YgJDK6X34V+WUStfjN3YqbcClZxUWe2rOt3BfxsuG+a cmOHVmS5ufOOXE7dsB6w9eviNOO2h/XWCdyjnrtYY4bCxmDzyHV3MZW3Z4OlJWOFffOa5HPe fog8Xn5wsLm+tKyMWJAqSjJrJSJmmgucT/QkHOsnUtPRPSDRsTiWBZQgtplgVYswdaGxE8sy XIJJfpQVX9G6rm+1Qyc8BEGcgvx9cHjzaK+NbFPo8UsZZ1YxuqPba3Kr7NlmLFp78oTBYtTY 2bTCtNd/mBKkDd1qhEm/TqX1DElXlnWwKOEDX9FxvWIjVtVP04kdXJspb8U404GLbH3H86+D XAjAkXI7QY/CRsmENvi0wzxjb8PduWYslqJA6yMeoJY9iB1aiK/1LetfozUBX1nKhXCzfOz3 dAaHhUel0dylxRndQP7lpahvZw9FLv9Ijc2gafh7hQ7PxJue1H0v5nrOkyfxr9/kZSLnKk16 /LD88Wlu3O2oDNOc0Mcw29VGxTkHMsi5qWsYXGX4fFrIpmuZ9L1yNdY2Z0HJEMFC3oP7imts X05sQzIdDwlDe9afW5bI1QzYHeve1EvC3hDTjl3uAbKY5tOFs0S6bZo1mXDe7Ul6gCkMJSg3 j1WKRC9N1fp7sW9qVxfyFYljGVeN2UpJqBXEIghLewgetxnzSwARAQABtCVKb3N1YSBNYXll ciA8am9zdWEubWF5ZXI5N0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQJOBBMBCgA4FiEEBGzKTuBeYuHyxSgAY7Jb EByN8BkFAltbZT0CGwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQY7JbEByN8Bn97w// WLLmSYDg2e/zlcD0cjtRDnHliDk6b/FVoqPLlY1taFAIzQzptowYLGhwaid4HpghmwmeM0t4 auadcOPj6Cge/fW+9uTpehP+E4Knp1CpWVNNPfNcad/7wL98rBTy+3huaPnwAIeXdVdc7Jfi 3nnvX8o1NFuivZ7SXaBKtZo1iSm2B4yn7TndjQKqJ/TzQdYp9Sb7CiG1JWT/hAH8Zax8lETx BVhgOPZpe9RH108NlVnVwDtIN55O7iSMAVwl3ON3khuTVFtYmVd7iOFkzUx4TCJ6YSZsWQzz NHawbBavHE1DsDdT1BrJsz42DJjuBJXNtEDd/KRzzOhsLDjoZpoIvgFgeNAIxvLozae1ajvT 1g3Twgb+ewDVsmB9m2IjleNJyIlNG0vTX3/SQPsS6I3sVo1Q30rC6IUGBiK2PKJDkFcPz2xK YrdR49t5zBk6olXiCdoYgjlCkA8yxVaFMLMnLxzyfiD5ngT9k74j6CZV/M+M8/7tTyOOk+Ni wCe0NCrYk+PED9pLBQ294Z15aA0x83X4a1lmZOh7agspQ3Xsc1KwA7MpHy/P3sAZJt6P77Ft YbRXErbzm+ZkWGdCzEYF8khgds+4mTJFWH58Jm1rm0ZsYeyK+VyES/D1E8yCQalWYSw7yQ4I ivQwrzjl7HBNmSPMqHRzKSvgoGixABxKiOS5Ag0EW1ti3gEQAMngBnhTg9c0119KxFq1pJCh nsCNYlNQXVembZHjxCU7ui0sTJsDotJ4RZfFnIyXuDf0xPpLwxtQsdaShx66MqUEwFoni+X4 a8j+q6osWF51vNS8VXT3D/gmAubuf0CrVPWmgeU9IvsBtUotfq6dpLkBGqFe9pXHnaUovRbc cdXjYBFwUrpxAwNqOJWgLQ9ePEaZ3viXvr0KwIt2YH1n3XWeVqqpGmXevsioVKbP4Jgq8GFE pp9VnraEiQ+U8hYGjKRFyCisDSVhQzN1J+XDSYlQ7a4AQZ+C7yO4RJe95JDhc3WN0nzvyEcr AFLGgCWOxfEBg++upA3BTmVxESRAGTf+zo6y9rCAgB6Tbj2VZxN82MPbs9C7znKvQR8V5cUC XEYlmxIGSuuvJ8hc6q46ygZlZEPD1wvCV+UiQicEv0Qi3f2q4vNQOWCxYcQLIO6eJB6lnUba mC9rWQqQiVHc572U7gmsUbRtL8Re8ZuFQZbYNu+kDkMm4gqDLnpM6SLBZRmjGAYkwGssycUB nPDRWaKTDhnLqqjlFo+GAXNxt/rG6o2UGqJYASJ96ib0d1l7RbPshDj0hYmkKG62P9C4yR5n jkXXnjJKbHcraT3w+WO+bq6qDGiRJGtlYr2u8Y687k/xJzgRRLDdIgO+UEgMNdc5NUzj1f+M SmUCySrkuVS7ABEBAAGJAjYEGAEKACAWIQQEbMpO4F5i4fLFKABjslsQHI3wGQUCW1ti3gIb DAAKCRBjslsQHI3wGUU9EACqTPgZ8zuH0iBhdViM/RSjXoSUEre40ZdqfX4PwvYw2LWqPO2l hMEFB18ljpTQGg5sMBhuzIRWlB7X7E2Pe3cNG6wtzHaaDHr3DXxir/Y+hH3x7Xh8XduzKvsf nYxgd8BrNXCeDzzgGzjw27mieAHmitu+TNoq8+whceZ5FVtIs5+1lovHEduAYqMNg6acAjYw vCJcCqMD+LwZ7MuZNmzVsmTBOXYt89G51TzEJNnixhpLfvJQv6XjfB3GSQX5t2K7eCnHQjcW HwZCi9+/IznvuKIdXtoXDkEYO99/hXq8PYyPzwzQuuhxD7q2y4Vepg892Wd25VXoki1QNDxb BSOR0JYYYYi8uUaMUwb//aVOeDSrVB6MC79HezU0U6WabAbwmDMg5RYGwBtOLOg5V4khPGBD S4ntspMxn6uwHmUP3bQI9i4/R3ZCbm82BKrDnumvgXA2ZjOocm4KnBUq7iFcHCHtXTF0cP3f CKO5ue43dppoEyy/YbY+MykMGSDds0Zo1WS7BLtY1jU57BJpeA2LyB+tlnqneBY7bSiCnLFk R445GWURcesv2Be076yKhbVggsu2+1yv+NbToFBhLNhqHJH0e0nUrxmvoWDYRhGIODRtk3dk m/pY86DbEeNK+Y8ByMRDt5Pa0RFAOeDAxA8BcPD1/koQbNgp0it70I2nNrkCDQRbW2TiARAA yZ4qQ+6XWKDnK8f8fHUSc5U+C8yQJwwjwq8YjTOJAGlrJPH62ap1Bs8KKd0HXLYx3Z0aAOtw lGWYUEJtHQAMUed8sYz08dSs5XrRQ0p50o+7Jg12XAqaCqcQjq2XS9YImBB4W2GQASiHwDpR ZlJT+s4CfozWMiK0yBiYyYEXv3ndkXq2DlOYXIG3HxGH881RentUS4ufRpe3jS148pKjYg5O p142XP9jBVO9sSqMcpQnnJaRlLxt/f3WvhOAgSui+E/VTkR++Avo16hcrM+us05YuGePzHLB 81ZcENAts9VRBSH0yM1uA1omWgy+iVMqTTtz0KyI5huiktNkDvoT4eO0qV9bvaED+vrZR+2n 25TuqIPoQpAW6yfdgot/2MyRGEFlBvmshFDuUBwR2HIfIrewb+pCpif9YTCXbT9k4SOwYirJ TvItKv/w/AVOQ5jpBd7J2+fsirNYhdC2DgEPW8aJGra0ElwJBS/bS3eIuhQt3jtoTlK9FN7Z eE0hpFLqlsJZ3DYunsQ59alZjHo5u9qLDDI2f916zsbI+eajQva9ax/kXWXcEHpQk20MFj7c AT4tCbFYy84sPqKMEccY2BrbnlzKvSwHqRJAyK0TApKJk2EG/io6SMU7Ez6O0Rv2JW2XQy8Q ROGvD1IwYXOGdz42CeNHTAGvWUwb+xHTAYEAEQEAAYkEbAQYAQoAIBYhBARsyk7gXmLh8sUo AGOyWxAcjfAZBQJbW2TiAhsCAkAJEGOyWxAcjfAZwXQgBBkBCgAdFiEEp/mKrntZgfn46C9m OMa81b1flPwFAltbZOIACgkQOMa81b1flPyzIw//XY+Lf7v50TDbaks2bHc7sgysIQlYMLjE QD4tLXeowgl6NB8uYvU3mok/mgkClXEmYUqNYZtBZ9lW5wdOlZ9tjWKshZEXtCadROAq0ux7 J5nJMgtQRif9+QmW/DSOR02LZ1x7qGWBbMBGT8kYX4AiXo1RMORbcoXz/a6+RO8LXQeAYdrF QIbb5OzVKnAiVLirCUnI3ZMfgyjtAgcHYSNVggHbBOI5bJEwFQvMuD65wzbgLbNQBJXNMeZR R9WucRm9GcFZgX+XlwGx/Lls16iH+tgvEnoUJnukNad+EeGESBputyGhtS5tknF1CN7MxHj+ MI+GOpkcK1+2TUcA4CEn89KiLNVvIkLemWDcBwXC3okiFXGaqmIOGHw4ngErGPbKcmChO/3h lRAJYVuYLStJMPcgr+Q8b5li1EzezV2NW3MNpmXEpDnA3GFoch6krI0cyys8680ToByTwRHZ HpD4MJNPdS60ZL75gfnO+kTHFirlvw/7Omo+CfbCxTQC2uUneSMvzpZe4nf0/UdYXbo8t7AR diUZzKYsfzl/wKtzLaKWvuVJZnV5j+p67uBwoqtCzwZd7srOo1zTmlcHwjcNX0ks/P02Nxne 8fUYjDzvKm3XZSL7PHoxiQmZlcT13r3thL45SO7DTQCTgRlYPsmM45IZPdmAO03ff0uz2SaP HA+TYQ/5AeGp8YXeWJT0ts+7wz7Mf2ztTB/CSusQ44CiboBOKu0+ED5GzfLtk+eDZDXIIWhQ yxey8G9JRrthIdRuxeTKqSOePnIyBp8cNllgx7cgyL2oXCHVVOOk8mRC97GoFxw35Ls8FQzg knrC0xbFytCLJVIwOXYtJRc+kkqa4X8znhHtSicoUSriSab8vQR7EedXxOSt1abWVh8Y+inn hW8nr/lPGdcZlCff72tLlHZEgdwY1o6qKZkudiTdwTwpB+xYDv58TJKDtCUaFiKIjP6YVSwi OgbyzAW1diMI246jJg/x+RytRzkWkg4HvOJiUM3y2pr9KaHjFzMBSYADukTuJ6MkcvC1aqsY whKXMx5cWMpCisP6kZQNfsfM5UdvFghk+2bs33XNPFOilBozFo9OkEPpc8tezZqq7seZupYX 4AsCiHxwat8Z+I6ecNNIc0O8zkzUPqJotWehO12vlTpPU4qyDjyn16Ude1Nb+y6cK3R1Bu1+ baaDWy6Yx9bIat1koYXY0TD9hhIRdQ1Z3T0qBqm2b9oMT8XzhIhlBzwkrku5XmVfHILh6m/D Atc5XoeNksMaV6XsdxSAsBT6Vy5Ancd9LQ6hx2F4N/EY2K+X/j63RQwyJSrHXWHyY1if/TY3 CKEuEwlKLbUIs14huWIjQI1HmQ9RjWe3DUkI6Y6MpmY= Message-ID: <48b43bd5-4a20-c69c-77bb-1ed258bb8664@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:59:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rnw16NLrz4ZBF X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iC5FGvDy; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of josuamayer97@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::435 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=josuamayer97@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.19 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.14)[-0.145]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.06)[-1.056]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.993]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::435:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:59:47 -0000 \o everybody, this is just a little sidenote from an outsider: Isn't below remark a good reason to remove something from base? Like - would the bugfix have been available quicker if it had been in a port? Would the reporter have actually tested the fix in that case? Am 22.06.20 um 22:33 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: > 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. >>> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. >> >> And your PR# for reporting the bug is? > > Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 > Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, > so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 14:39:57 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA9A356AA7 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rppN2gDQz4byr for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05NEdk51030922 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39:49 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: josua.mayer97@gmail.com Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05NEdgWg043376 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:39:42 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: Josua Mayer , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> <48b43bd5-4a20-c69c-77bb-1ed258bb8664@gmail.com> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 21:39:35 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <48b43bd5-4a20-c69c-77bb-1ed258bb8664@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rppN2gDQz4byr X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.25 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.43)[-0.429]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.66)[-0.657]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.06)[-0.061]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com,freebsd.org]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:39:57 -0000 23.06.2020 20:59, Josua Mayer wrote: > this is just a little sidenote from an outsider: > Isn't below remark a good reason to remove something from base? It is if it really sat unfixed for 16 years. > Like - would the bugfix have been available quicker if it had been in a > port? Maybe. > Would the reporter have actually tested the fix in that case? Definitely. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 14:44:40 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04392356E52 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rpvp4z2fz4d32 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:44:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05NEia9v015842; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:44:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05NEiaWV015841; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:44:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202006231444.05NEiaWV015841@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal In-Reply-To: <48b43bd5-4a20-c69c-77bb-1ed258bb8664@gmail.com> To: Josua Mayer Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:44:36 -0700 (PDT) CC: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rpvp4z2fz4d32 X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.98 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.20)[0.199]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.51)[0.513]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.37)[0.373]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:44:40 -0000 > \o everybody, > > this is just a little sidenote from an outsider: > Isn't below remark a good reason to remove something from base? > > Like - would the bugfix have been available quicker if it had been in a > port? Would the reporter have actually tested the fix in that case? It would of likely got even less attention as a port, and that would not of really effected the fact that Eugene moved on to another solution before the bug fix was completed, which is a common situation, people need there stuff to work, and they usually need it to work NOW, so when they hit a bug they find a solution, often without even submitting a bug report. The fact that the patch was not back ported to RELENG_4 so that Eugene could of tested it is also a factor here, and addressing those types of issues with a tool other than base removal is probably a more productive path forward. Further the fact the code has been in use for 7 major versions since then makes use of that bug as a case for removal rather a far reach, IMHO. > > Am 22.06.20 um 22:33 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: > > 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >>> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. > >>> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. > >> > >> And your PR# for reporting the bug is? > > > > Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 > > Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, > > so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. I till use a 5.x version of FreeBSD: FreeBSD pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net 5.4-RELEASE-p8 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p8 #1: Mon Jul 1 17:58:50 PDT 2019 root@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PDXMXPIE i386 7:41AM up 158 days, 8:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 It actually ended up with some very stable code. 5.4p8 is the end of line for much of my early personal work as the change to CAM broke most of that work. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 14:47:21 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6601A357027 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:47:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rpyx1Q28z4d1p; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:47:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05NElJ6a015859; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05NElJIb015858; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202006231447.05NElJIb015858@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Getting patches reviewed as an outside contributor In-Reply-To: <20200623134506.GE95874@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: Tom Jones Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) CC: Neel Chauhan , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rpyx1Q28z4d1p X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:47:21 -0000 > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Neel Chauhan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have many patches, focusing on the TCP/IP stack on Phabricator. > > > > Some of them are accepted, but not committed. Most are stuck as needs > > review. And many of these patches are only a few lines/trivial. > > > > For instance, on my Phabricator: > > > > * My account: https://reviews.freebsd.org/p/neel_neelc.org/ > > * My patches: https://reviews.freebsd.org/people/revisions/5933/ > > > > Would these patches get reviewed eventually? Is there anything I can do to > > speed up the process? Or is this something I need to be patient about? > > > > In case you get confused I am NOT neel@FreeBSD despite a common first name, > > only neel@[PERSONAL DOMAIN] where I am sending this email from. > > > > Hi Neel, > > For any reviews in the transport area (tcp, sctp, udp, ip(ish)) you > should add the transport group in phabricator and probably email the > freebsd-transport list too. > > If you haven't any response after a week or so please email me > (thj@freebsd.org) and I will raise them on the fortnightly transport > call if I can't review myself. Thanks Tom! I do not feel my level us to "approve" for group transport, though I am attending the calls. > - Tom -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Jun 23 16:20:48 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464D4331B2B for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:20:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josua.mayer97@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49rs2l3Xb3z3WKh for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:20:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josua.mayer97@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id b6so21176264wrs.11 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:20:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:autocrypt:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=98BFiN1+xySKPiDgO4wma7Cd82a3d8qYVH25K6Kb6kQ=; b=tW8SZ3WnREvMLOpOPO6M7SN6oXl9pheqQBgnhMG85cCG/1BjZAFsOLRdj+EXlOzOEp N+jsJ4Vjv0hMh1jtYHmqbAkG7FKLCW3yfpbXgnBZ+oCXNFOpxCHYIFN/PE4YFXaHEGcQ J2YSkD0kF7Lm2EhCKkDsv6rR6nzqx99S3XJjLtHDbWlKS5ZItMjX2A6jhquFdHQXQNTe bDnxmNMsQ3fO/qnrPtAmsidgjFWVG/uMez8vcTWWQPPW5PmQt/YGo8hd659vHGa0gHcj qJ1VRUEIcxMNKu5xFss7AoD2DsoYd6KuTBiDGIonA/FyTvNVQ1S7t+/+KOYPEVj37b+I a3wA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:autocrypt :message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=98BFiN1+xySKPiDgO4wma7Cd82a3d8qYVH25K6Kb6kQ=; b=Q15mlr2eltp9YsHKoJGrd/pq2SAVmXuNrixAcFZXX8qFR9l3sOuWBPlyZAbj2FwRvN /icW6id5p+etNhhfUl3ta03dN3qAM3MUO9wRSCnALH+kdX2gzf8JpZk5WUweKKS5HYu9 srHPmEkHhbfuiXCcqtXjol0rTQZ0aIh+h9YiCrOzoYyxmRbfVrRckrdvllypwZOmZXda VFijOdOhTZ1djCVwFnnoCHhFGqHPj9NsO1cczzb/CtlDOifDI2wtgz6j3MW3PyLJKZL0 3D6rBN9s+ozgq0SbHhLzXe8wO0DLg05LNXvIxOuh04qh3goeknXtJR+iElJehbkhuQg0 Pq1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ugkKJoTus+zx3rsCG0fWMHEeZL8XS5Gh781yKZKykxcjWTzqU Wx304o/UK5nV57a8f5znShQz1KRI3rQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyea/jdSurLIyH6hJvABHYUNUi7BPhzQ4+zJhgtortKQFYvVo6SdhySVzUVmCWQSWqtqUCREA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1c8:: with SMTP id t8mr10267821wrx.73.1592929245577; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2003:c6:1f3d:7510::f30? (p200300c61f3d75100000000000000f30.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:c6:1f3d:7510::f30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s18sm25593292wra.85.2020.06.23.09.20.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <202006231444.05NEiaWV015841@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> From: Josua Mayer Autocrypt: addr=josua.mayer97@gmail.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFtbYt4BEACysNSF+vmzzBvR+YgJDK6X34V+WUStfjN3YqbcClZxUWe2rOt3BfxsuG+a cmOHVmS5ufOOXE7dsB6w9eviNOO2h/XWCdyjnrtYY4bCxmDzyHV3MZW3Z4OlJWOFffOa5HPe fog8Xn5wsLm+tKyMWJAqSjJrJSJmmgucT/QkHOsnUtPRPSDRsTiWBZQgtplgVYswdaGxE8sy XIJJfpQVX9G6rm+1Qyc8BEGcgvx9cHjzaK+NbFPo8UsZZ1YxuqPba3Kr7NlmLFp78oTBYtTY 2bTCtNd/mBKkDd1qhEm/TqX1DElXlnWwKOEDX9FxvWIjVtVP04kdXJspb8U404GLbH3H86+D XAjAkXI7QY/CRsmENvi0wzxjb8PduWYslqJA6yMeoJY9iB1aiK/1LetfozUBX1nKhXCzfOz3 dAaHhUel0dylxRndQP7lpahvZw9FLv9Ijc2gafh7hQ7PxJue1H0v5nrOkyfxr9/kZSLnKk16 /LD88Wlu3O2oDNOc0Mcw29VGxTkHMsi5qWsYXGX4fFrIpmuZ9L1yNdY2Z0HJEMFC3oP7imts X05sQzIdDwlDe9afW5bI1QzYHeve1EvC3hDTjl3uAbKY5tOFs0S6bZo1mXDe7Ul6gCkMJSg3 j1WKRC9N1fp7sW9qVxfyFYljGVeN2UpJqBXEIghLewgetxnzSwARAQABtCVKb3N1YSBNYXll ciA8am9zdWEubWF5ZXI5N0BnbWFpbC5jb20+iQJOBBMBCgA4FiEEBGzKTuBeYuHyxSgAY7Jb EByN8BkFAltbZT0CGwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQY7JbEByN8Bn97w// WLLmSYDg2e/zlcD0cjtRDnHliDk6b/FVoqPLlY1taFAIzQzptowYLGhwaid4HpghmwmeM0t4 auadcOPj6Cge/fW+9uTpehP+E4Knp1CpWVNNPfNcad/7wL98rBTy+3huaPnwAIeXdVdc7Jfi 3nnvX8o1NFuivZ7SXaBKtZo1iSm2B4yn7TndjQKqJ/TzQdYp9Sb7CiG1JWT/hAH8Zax8lETx BVhgOPZpe9RH108NlVnVwDtIN55O7iSMAVwl3ON3khuTVFtYmVd7iOFkzUx4TCJ6YSZsWQzz NHawbBavHE1DsDdT1BrJsz42DJjuBJXNtEDd/KRzzOhsLDjoZpoIvgFgeNAIxvLozae1ajvT 1g3Twgb+ewDVsmB9m2IjleNJyIlNG0vTX3/SQPsS6I3sVo1Q30rC6IUGBiK2PKJDkFcPz2xK YrdR49t5zBk6olXiCdoYgjlCkA8yxVaFMLMnLxzyfiD5ngT9k74j6CZV/M+M8/7tTyOOk+Ni wCe0NCrYk+PED9pLBQ294Z15aA0x83X4a1lmZOh7agspQ3Xsc1KwA7MpHy/P3sAZJt6P77Ft YbRXErbzm+ZkWGdCzEYF8khgds+4mTJFWH58Jm1rm0ZsYeyK+VyES/D1E8yCQalWYSw7yQ4I ivQwrzjl7HBNmSPMqHRzKSvgoGixABxKiOS5Ag0EW1ti3gEQAMngBnhTg9c0119KxFq1pJCh nsCNYlNQXVembZHjxCU7ui0sTJsDotJ4RZfFnIyXuDf0xPpLwxtQsdaShx66MqUEwFoni+X4 a8j+q6osWF51vNS8VXT3D/gmAubuf0CrVPWmgeU9IvsBtUotfq6dpLkBGqFe9pXHnaUovRbc cdXjYBFwUrpxAwNqOJWgLQ9ePEaZ3viXvr0KwIt2YH1n3XWeVqqpGmXevsioVKbP4Jgq8GFE pp9VnraEiQ+U8hYGjKRFyCisDSVhQzN1J+XDSYlQ7a4AQZ+C7yO4RJe95JDhc3WN0nzvyEcr AFLGgCWOxfEBg++upA3BTmVxESRAGTf+zo6y9rCAgB6Tbj2VZxN82MPbs9C7znKvQR8V5cUC XEYlmxIGSuuvJ8hc6q46ygZlZEPD1wvCV+UiQicEv0Qi3f2q4vNQOWCxYcQLIO6eJB6lnUba mC9rWQqQiVHc572U7gmsUbRtL8Re8ZuFQZbYNu+kDkMm4gqDLnpM6SLBZRmjGAYkwGssycUB nPDRWaKTDhnLqqjlFo+GAXNxt/rG6o2UGqJYASJ96ib0d1l7RbPshDj0hYmkKG62P9C4yR5n jkXXnjJKbHcraT3w+WO+bq6qDGiRJGtlYr2u8Y687k/xJzgRRLDdIgO+UEgMNdc5NUzj1f+M SmUCySrkuVS7ABEBAAGJAjYEGAEKACAWIQQEbMpO4F5i4fLFKABjslsQHI3wGQUCW1ti3gIb DAAKCRBjslsQHI3wGUU9EACqTPgZ8zuH0iBhdViM/RSjXoSUEre40ZdqfX4PwvYw2LWqPO2l hMEFB18ljpTQGg5sMBhuzIRWlB7X7E2Pe3cNG6wtzHaaDHr3DXxir/Y+hH3x7Xh8XduzKvsf nYxgd8BrNXCeDzzgGzjw27mieAHmitu+TNoq8+whceZ5FVtIs5+1lovHEduAYqMNg6acAjYw vCJcCqMD+LwZ7MuZNmzVsmTBOXYt89G51TzEJNnixhpLfvJQv6XjfB3GSQX5t2K7eCnHQjcW HwZCi9+/IznvuKIdXtoXDkEYO99/hXq8PYyPzwzQuuhxD7q2y4Vepg892Wd25VXoki1QNDxb BSOR0JYYYYi8uUaMUwb//aVOeDSrVB6MC79HezU0U6WabAbwmDMg5RYGwBtOLOg5V4khPGBD S4ntspMxn6uwHmUP3bQI9i4/R3ZCbm82BKrDnumvgXA2ZjOocm4KnBUq7iFcHCHtXTF0cP3f CKO5ue43dppoEyy/YbY+MykMGSDds0Zo1WS7BLtY1jU57BJpeA2LyB+tlnqneBY7bSiCnLFk R445GWURcesv2Be076yKhbVggsu2+1yv+NbToFBhLNhqHJH0e0nUrxmvoWDYRhGIODRtk3dk m/pY86DbEeNK+Y8ByMRDt5Pa0RFAOeDAxA8BcPD1/koQbNgp0it70I2nNrkCDQRbW2TiARAA yZ4qQ+6XWKDnK8f8fHUSc5U+C8yQJwwjwq8YjTOJAGlrJPH62ap1Bs8KKd0HXLYx3Z0aAOtw lGWYUEJtHQAMUed8sYz08dSs5XrRQ0p50o+7Jg12XAqaCqcQjq2XS9YImBB4W2GQASiHwDpR ZlJT+s4CfozWMiK0yBiYyYEXv3ndkXq2DlOYXIG3HxGH881RentUS4ufRpe3jS148pKjYg5O p142XP9jBVO9sSqMcpQnnJaRlLxt/f3WvhOAgSui+E/VTkR++Avo16hcrM+us05YuGePzHLB 81ZcENAts9VRBSH0yM1uA1omWgy+iVMqTTtz0KyI5huiktNkDvoT4eO0qV9bvaED+vrZR+2n 25TuqIPoQpAW6yfdgot/2MyRGEFlBvmshFDuUBwR2HIfIrewb+pCpif9YTCXbT9k4SOwYirJ TvItKv/w/AVOQ5jpBd7J2+fsirNYhdC2DgEPW8aJGra0ElwJBS/bS3eIuhQt3jtoTlK9FN7Z eE0hpFLqlsJZ3DYunsQ59alZjHo5u9qLDDI2f916zsbI+eajQva9ax/kXWXcEHpQk20MFj7c AT4tCbFYy84sPqKMEccY2BrbnlzKvSwHqRJAyK0TApKJk2EG/io6SMU7Ez6O0Rv2JW2XQy8Q ROGvD1IwYXOGdz42CeNHTAGvWUwb+xHTAYEAEQEAAYkEbAQYAQoAIBYhBARsyk7gXmLh8sUo AGOyWxAcjfAZBQJbW2TiAhsCAkAJEGOyWxAcjfAZwXQgBBkBCgAdFiEEp/mKrntZgfn46C9m OMa81b1flPwFAltbZOIACgkQOMa81b1flPyzIw//XY+Lf7v50TDbaks2bHc7sgysIQlYMLjE QD4tLXeowgl6NB8uYvU3mok/mgkClXEmYUqNYZtBZ9lW5wdOlZ9tjWKshZEXtCadROAq0ux7 J5nJMgtQRif9+QmW/DSOR02LZ1x7qGWBbMBGT8kYX4AiXo1RMORbcoXz/a6+RO8LXQeAYdrF QIbb5OzVKnAiVLirCUnI3ZMfgyjtAgcHYSNVggHbBOI5bJEwFQvMuD65wzbgLbNQBJXNMeZR R9WucRm9GcFZgX+XlwGx/Lls16iH+tgvEnoUJnukNad+EeGESBputyGhtS5tknF1CN7MxHj+ MI+GOpkcK1+2TUcA4CEn89KiLNVvIkLemWDcBwXC3okiFXGaqmIOGHw4ngErGPbKcmChO/3h lRAJYVuYLStJMPcgr+Q8b5li1EzezV2NW3MNpmXEpDnA3GFoch6krI0cyys8680ToByTwRHZ HpD4MJNPdS60ZL75gfnO+kTHFirlvw/7Omo+CfbCxTQC2uUneSMvzpZe4nf0/UdYXbo8t7AR diUZzKYsfzl/wKtzLaKWvuVJZnV5j+p67uBwoqtCzwZd7srOo1zTmlcHwjcNX0ks/P02Nxne 8fUYjDzvKm3XZSL7PHoxiQmZlcT13r3thL45SO7DTQCTgRlYPsmM45IZPdmAO03ff0uz2SaP HA+TYQ/5AeGp8YXeWJT0ts+7wz7Mf2ztTB/CSusQ44CiboBOKu0+ED5GzfLtk+eDZDXIIWhQ yxey8G9JRrthIdRuxeTKqSOePnIyBp8cNllgx7cgyL2oXCHVVOOk8mRC97GoFxw35Ls8FQzg knrC0xbFytCLJVIwOXYtJRc+kkqa4X8znhHtSicoUSriSab8vQR7EedXxOSt1abWVh8Y+inn hW8nr/lPGdcZlCff72tLlHZEgdwY1o6qKZkudiTdwTwpB+xYDv58TJKDtCUaFiKIjP6YVSwi OgbyzAW1diMI246jJg/x+RytRzkWkg4HvOJiUM3y2pr9KaHjFzMBSYADukTuJ6MkcvC1aqsY whKXMx5cWMpCisP6kZQNfsfM5UdvFghk+2bs33XNPFOilBozFo9OkEPpc8tezZqq7seZupYX 4AsCiHxwat8Z+I6ecNNIc0O8zkzUPqJotWehO12vlTpPU4qyDjyn16Ude1Nb+y6cK3R1Bu1+ baaDWy6Yx9bIat1koYXY0TD9hhIRdQ1Z3T0qBqm2b9oMT8XzhIhlBzwkrku5XmVfHILh6m/D Atc5XoeNksMaV6XsdxSAsBT6Vy5Ancd9LQ6hx2F4N/EY2K+X/j63RQwyJSrHXWHyY1if/TY3 CKEuEwlKLbUIs14huWIjQI1HmQ9RjWe3DUkI6Y6MpmY= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:20:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <202006231444.05NEiaWV015841@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49rs2l3Xb3z3WKh X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=tW8SZ3Wn; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of josuamayer97@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::434 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=josuamayer97@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.39 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.35)[-0.349]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.05)[-1.048]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.989]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::434:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:20:48 -0000 Makes sense to me, thanks for explaining! removal being a quite strong measure seems to need different reasons. The alternative is to invert the problem and ask why component xyz should stay in the base system - but I haven't heard anyone ask, so it seems just fine ;) Am 23.06.20 um 16:44 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes: >> \o everybody, >> >> this is just a little sidenote from an outsider: >> Isn't below remark a good reason to remove something from base? >> >> Like - would the bugfix have been available quicker if it had been in a >> port? Would the reporter have actually tested the fix in that case? > > It would of likely got even less attention as a port, > and that would not of really effected the fact that Eugene > moved on to another solution before the bug fix was completed, > which is a common situation, people need there stuff to work, > and they usually need it to work NOW, so when they hit a bug > they find a solution, often without even submitting a bug > report. > > The fact that the patch was not back ported to RELENG_4 > so that Eugene could of tested it is also a factor here, > and addressing those types of issues with a tool other > than base removal is probably a more productive path > forward. > > Further the fact the code has been in use for 7 major > versions since then makes use of that bug as a case for > removal rather a far reach, IMHO. > >> >> Am 22.06.20 um 22:33 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: >>> 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>>>> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. >>>>> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. >>>> >>>> And your PR# for reporting the bug is? >>> >>> Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 >>> Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, >>> so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. > > I till use a 5.x version of FreeBSD: > > FreeBSD pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net 5.4-RELEASE-p8 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p8 #1: Mon Jul 1 17:58:50 PDT 2019 root@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PDXMXPIE i386 > 7:41AM up 158 days, 8:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 > > It actually ended up with some very stable code. 5.4p8 is the > end of line for much of my early personal work as the change to > CAM broke most of that work. > > From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 24 08:20:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06E73467F2; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:20:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward500p.mail.yandex.net (forward500p.mail.yandex.net [77.88.28.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49sGLN2j3Hz3Vsh; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:20:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from mxback8o.mail.yandex.net (mxback8o.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1a2d::22]) by forward500p.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 62A85940B16; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:20:41 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback8o.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id QJV6rwobR8-KerWhCQU; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:20:40 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1592986840; bh=f7d0vSj8wXxc4JCNi+ONkiCbiSd/re0T4dC7cDc5sac=; h=Message-Id:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:From; b=MySw7sWzQVYXUn3bXAtZXCHfnoWfQpUtZG5+96PoT34NpCcT6VrYBOL/KJA431yM9 7DjR7Sx1iLNd5Led96bgBTzPemCJv0WZPPFwJ/hGsFcsKiyQnQ2cjNqyq6OEMtb2jx qgKLREptVrqH6o8Wylq/iBh8+iY526qduyY6LlMU= Received: by iva3-64eac1bc5e68.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:20:40 +0300 From: Alexander V. Chernikov Envelope-From: melifaro@ipfw.ru To: Rodney W. Grimes Cc: "current@FreeBSD.org" , net , freebsd-hackers In-Reply-To: <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:20:40 +0100 Message-Id: <102621592983711@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49sGLN2j3Hz3Vsh X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=MySw7sWz; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 77.88.28.110 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.44 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.01)[-1.006]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:77.88.0.0/18]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.98)[-0.983]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[77.88.28.110:from]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.15)[-1.149]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[77.88.28.110:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13238, ipnet:77.88.0.0/18, country:RU]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:20:45 -0000 22.06.2020, 13:50, "Rodney W. Grimes" : >>  Hey, Hi Rodney, >> >>  I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. > > I disagree with removal, as your analysis is flawed. Thank you for the feedback! > >>  routed(8) is the daemon implementing RIPv2 routing protocol. >>  route6d(8) is the daemon implementing RIPng routing protocol for IPv6. >> >>  RIP [1] was one of the first protocols used in the networking. The first version was implemented back in 1982. > > RIPv1 was implemented in 1982, RIPv2 became RFC2453 in November 1998, and is a current and valid IETF standard, STD56. > It was updated by RFC4822 in February 2007. > >>  1. Network landscape has changed since then. BGP, OSPF, IS-ISIS and other routing protocols have been created and greatly improved over years. People have created and adopted numerous designs leveraging OSPF/ISIS or BGP. >>  RIP became obsolete a while ago as there were no competitive advantage it can offer. > >>  "It is the oldest routing protocol used by the network industry and is considered by many to be inefficient or border-line obsolete." ? [2], 2009 > > RIPv2 is not obosolete, and your reference is not authoritave on what is or is not an obsolete network protocol. Different people have different opinions :-) Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, but simple. Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from "traditional" routing suites/daemons. With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one direction. > I know of people using RIPv2 in networks. Collecting people feedback is the goal of this exercise. If there are existing users, then that's certainly a valid point in keeping the daemons in question. > >>  "Today, the only reason you might run across a network running RIPv2 is either that the network is very old and in serious need of an upgrade or the network is running cheaper, consumer-grade routing hardware that can only support RIP" ? [3], 2016. > > Or there simply is no need for anything more complicated. RipV2 is a very simple protocol and works fine for small networks in many settings. > >>  1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. > > I'll agree the name is missleading, so change it, but removal on your false basis is not. > >>  2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp or gobgp. Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or BGP speaker is the choice. FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained ports for these. Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantage. > > Routing stacks? You mean routing daemons? Forcing users to install bir, frr or quagga when all they need, or have been using for a long time is in base ripv2 is not good for users. Routing protocol suite, routing daemons, etc.. The question that I'm trying to get an answer for is the existence of these users :-) > >>  3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits to routed/route6d: > > Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? Yep, and then you get SA 14:21 or SA 20:12. > >>  sbin/routed: >>  r327276 - coverity >>  r317035 - rtsock fix >>  r299825 - coverity >>  r299822 - coverity, from netbsd >>  r299821 - coverity, from netbsd >>  r299784 - coverity, from netbsd >>  r299771 - coverify, from netbsd >>  r286347 - bugfix >>  r276602 - SA14:21 patch >>  r271919 - SA14:21 fix >>  r215702 - logic fix, 2010 >> >>  usr.sbin/route6d: >>  r337500 - functional fix, 2018 >>  r317035 - rtsock fix >>  r311994 - coverity >>  r311985 - coverity >>  r299869 - coverity >>  r299491 - coverity >>  r270234 - link-local fix >>  r243233 - functionality improvement, 2012 >> >>  To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protocols exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. >> >>  With all that in mind I propose to remove routed and route6d from base in FreeBSD 13. >>  Timeline: >>  June 5 - feedback aggregation and decision point >>  July 19 - removal (proposed) >> >>  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol >>  [2] https://www.globalknowledge.com/ca-en/resources/resource-library/articles/basics-of-understanding-rip/ >>  [3] https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routing-protocols >>  [4] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=361897&namedcmd=routed_prs >> >>  /Alexander >>  _______________________________________________ >>  freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>  https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>  To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- > Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 24 09:07:40 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2028E348FA4; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:07:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from forward500j.mail.yandex.net (forward500j.mail.yandex.net [5.45.198.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49sHNV4dV2z3YdD; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@ipfw.ru) Received: from mxback21j.mail.yandex.net (mxback21j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1619::221]) by forward500j.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 6E07411C2840; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:07:35 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (localhost [::1]) by mxback21j.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id ZsHof0woJf-7YtGCEPv; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:07:34 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfw.ru; s=mail; t=1592989654; bh=5DAyeXxF8W/ysn2J0HhgPtFV7QA1SJudcJSlAlpnPGE=; h=Message-Id:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To:From; b=u8bJytf/dmhQuURwpC+LSu/ZsgmsO9AhXtMgqRL0QRRUVh2ePs8y1a7ZpU3Y2a/JW 2MT+NRSF0OxvPBZyoqtg+67vwxCiPujmnrqUp3tCehiPNB37i6pwEz1Nve5uCkHHQD dWlnqm+gSejrTEGPf16qA8z17OFnl0hTj9kXoQmo= Received: by sas2-e9d1d6a5422a.qloud-c.yandex.net with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:07:34 +0300 From: Alexander V. Chernikov Envelope-From: melifaro@ipfw.ru To: Hiroki Sato Cc: "current@freebsd.org" , "net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" In-Reply-To: <20200622.224621.1160033569666141710.hrs@FreeBSD.org> References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> <20200622.224621.1160033569666141710.hrs@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:07:34 +0100 Message-Id: <113821592986861@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49sHNV4dV2z3YdD X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=ipfw.ru header.s=mail header.b=u8bJytf/; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of melifaro@ipfw.ru designates 5.45.198.250 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=melifaro@ipfw.ru X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.04 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[ipfw.ru:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.03)[-1.030]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:5.45.192.0/19:c]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.995]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[ipfw.ru:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.71)[-0.712]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[5.45.198.250:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13238, ipnet:5.45.192.0/18, country:RU]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[melifaro@freebsd.org,melifaro@ipfw.ru]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[5.45.198.250:from] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:07:40 -0000 22.06.2020, 14:54, "Hiroki Sato" : > "Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote >   in <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru>: > > me> Hey, > me> > me> I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. > >  I am still using both of them in production environments because they >  work well at least for my configurations and most of promising >  alternatives are under GPL, not BSDL. That's actually a very good datapoint I certainly missed. > >  Why do we need to rush to remove them? Discussion about whether we There is no rush. In my opinion, popularity&usage of rip is going in one direction, for the reasons stated in the original e-mail. At some point in time it's worth checking the reality and verify whether we still need it in base or not. I stated 2 week timeframe (though I admit I wrongly written Jun instead of July) for collecting feedback to base a decision upon. It looks like there is enough feedback already. >  should keep or remove such old bits tends to be controversial when >  there is a user like me. I would agree with the removal if they were >  harmful or impossible to maintain, but would not for the reason that >  they are simply old and probably no one uses it today. Reason 1 and >  2 look like the latter at least to me. "too old to be worth keeping" >  is a matter of degree. Uucp, rlogind, and timed should be removed >  (and were removed) because there are few non-FreeBSD platforms which >  support these protocols. RIP is still widely supported---just like >  FTP, which nowadays no one prefers to use and major www browsers are >  about to drop the support of---and not be considered an inherently >  vulnerable protocol like telnet. And keeping these daemons is not >  harmful even for users who want to use third-party routing daemons >  you listed. My concern is hidden housekeeping costs. You have to update the documentation, where it exists. There are some bugs and you have to do something there. There are security vulns or Coverity reports. when you do a change, you have to verify it somehow and you have to tests, so you have to spend more time. Each of it is a small thing by itself, but they add up and drain developer time. > > me> 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation > me> described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the > me> program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. > >  I do not think this is a good reason to remove something nor people >  have got confused actually. If this is true, quagga or bird are much >  worse. > > me> 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol > me> including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only > me> designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp > me> or gobgp. Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or > me> BGP speaker is the choice. FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained > me> ports for these. Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantage. > me> > me> 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an > me> additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits > me> to routed/route6d: > >  I think this is a separate issue. What attack vectors which are >  known to be vulnerable do they have? I'm referring to the cases like SA 14:21 or SA 20:12. > >  The small commit counts are not equal to its unreliability. Older >  daemons such as ppp(8), dhclient(8), ftpd(8), or bootpd(8) have >  received few substantial changes in recent years because they are >  mature. Well, I see another alternative reason, but that's another discussion :-) Also, dhclient got 50 commits in the last 4 years, so I wouldn't put it in this list. > >  I am not a strong protester and will be happy to keep them as ports >  if everyone wants to remove them and it will happen, but I would like >  consistent criteria on removing software in the base system (they do >  not need to be perfect nor strict, though). I believe harmfulness is My criteria (briefly) is the "moral" staleness, existence of the viable alternatives and no users. I should have stated the latter more explicitly. >  more important than the fact that it is old or we have more choices >  in the ports tree. If we have negative factors on maintaining them, >  removing them would be one of the choices as a result. If the >  existing routed/route6d makes difficulty on people who want to use >  third-party routing daemons, it should be fixed. These kind of >  harmfulness look below the threshold to me at this moment though I >  may be biased because I am still using them today... > > -- Hiroki From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 24 16:35:49 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C47352A53; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49sTKd1Y0Xz4Mgq; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:35:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (localhost [IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OGa8DH047122 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: Cypht MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "current@freebsd.org" , "net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" In-Reply-To: <113821592986861@mail.yandex.ru> From: Chris Reply-To: bsd-lists@BSDforge.com To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" , "Rodney W. Grimes" , Hiroki Sato Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:36:14 -0700 Message-Id: <4dfcc0c99086b023a1508e5a7f60a0af@udns.ultimatedns.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49sTKd1Y0Xz4Mgq X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US]; local_wl_ip(0.00)[24.113.41.81] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:35:49 -0000 On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:07:34 +0100 Alexander V=2E Chernikov melifaro@freebsd=2E= org said > 22=2E06=2E2020, 14:54, "Hiroki Sato" : > > "Alexander V=2E Chernikov" wrote > > =C2=A0=C2=A0in <273191592779927@mail=2Eyandex=2Eru>: > > > > me> Hey, > > me> > > me> I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr=2Esbin/route6d= =2E Please don't=2E > > > > =C2=A0I am still using both of them in production environments because = they > > =C2=A0work well at least for my configurations and most of promising > > =C2=A0alternatives are under GPL, not BSDL=2E +1 on this=2E I began using this around FreeBSD 6, and continued using it through 9=2E I also chose this as a solution for several of my clients=2E I use it because it's "cheap" -- simple, lightweight, and dependable=2E With near zero maintenance -- and it's already available in $BASE=2E While fairly utilitaria= n by today's standards=2E Sometimes you just need to get the job done, and this does just that=2E Which IMHO makes this a shinning star=2E Please don't remove this=2E It's going to make the lives of others a little more difficult=2E Thanks for taking time time to read=2E > That's actually a very good datapoint I certainly missed=2E > > > > =C2=A0Why do we need to rush to remove them? Discussion about whether w= e > There is no rush=2E In my opinion, popularity&usage of rip is going in one > direction, for the reasons stated in the original e-mail=2E > At some point in time it's worth checking the reality and verify whether = we > still need it in base or not=2E > I stated 2 week timeframe (though I admit I wrongly written Jun instead o= f > July) for collecting feedback to base a decision upon=2E > It looks like there is enough feedback already=2E > > =C2=A0should keep or remove such old bits tends to be controversial whe= n > > =C2=A0there is a user like me=2E I would agree with the removal if they w= ere > > =C2=A0harmful or impossible to maintain, but would not for the reason t= hat > > =C2=A0they are simply old and probably no one uses it today=2E Reason 1 a= nd > > =C2=A02 look like the latter at least to me=2E "too old to be worth keepi= ng" > > =C2=A0is a matter of degree=2E Uucp, rlogind, and timed should be removed > > =C2=A0(and were removed) because there are few non-FreeBSD platforms wh= ich > > =C2=A0support these protocols=2E RIP is still widely supported---just lik= e > > =C2=A0FTP, which nowadays no one prefers to use and major www browsers = are > > =C2=A0about to drop the support of---and not be considered an inherentl= y > > =C2=A0vulnerable protocol like telnet=2E And keeping these daemons is not > > =C2=A0harmful even for users who want to use third-party routing daemon= s > > =C2=A0you listed=2E > My concern is hidden housekeeping costs=2E You have to update the > documentation, where > it exists=2E There are some bugs and you have to do something there=2E There = are > security vulns or Coverity reports=2E > when you do a change, you have to verify it somehow and you have to tests= , > so you have to spend more time=2E > Each of it is a small thing by itself, but they add up and drain develope= r > time=2E >=20 > > > > me> 1=2E1=2E Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading=2E Given situation > > me> described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the > > me> program named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation=2E > > > > =C2=A0I do not think this is a good reason to remove something nor peop= le > > =C2=A0have got confused actually=2E If this is true, quagga or bird are m= uch > > =C2=A0worse=2E > > > > me> 2=2E Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol > > me> including RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga=2E Many BGP-only > > me> designs in are gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabg= p > > me> or gobgp=2E Nowadays, if one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF = or > > me> BGP speaker is the choice=2E FreeBSD packages contains well-maintaine= d > > me> ports for these=2E Having RIP[ng] speakers in base offers no advantag= e=2E > > me> > > me> 3=2E Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an > > me> additional attack vector=2E Here is the list of last non-trivial comm= its > > me> to routed/route6d: > > > > =C2=A0I think this is a separate issue=2E What attack vectors which are > > =C2=A0known to be vulnerable do they have? > I'm referring to the cases like SA 14:21 or SA 20:12=2E > > > > =C2=A0The small commit counts are not equal to its unreliability=2E Older > > =C2=A0daemons such as ppp(8), dhclient(8), ftpd(8), or bootpd(8) have > > =C2=A0received few substantial changes in recent years because they are > > =C2=A0mature=2E > Well, I see another alternative reason, but that's another discussion :-) > Also, dhclient got 50 commits in the last 4 years, so I wouldn't put it i= n > this list=2E > > > > =C2=A0I am not a strong protester and will be happy to keep them as por= ts > > =C2=A0if everyone wants to remove them and it will happen, but I would = like > > =C2=A0consistent criteria on removing software in the base system (they= do > > =C2=A0not need to be perfect nor strict, though)=2E I believe harmfulness= is > My criteria (briefly) is the "moral" staleness, existence of the viable > alternatives and no users=2E > I should have stated the latter more explicitly=2E > > =C2=A0more important than the fact that it is old or we have more choic= es > > =C2=A0in the ports tree=2E If we have negative factors on maintaining the= m, > > =C2=A0removing them would be one of the choices as a result=2E If the > > =C2=A0existing routed/route6d makes difficulty on people who want to us= e > > =C2=A0third-party routing daemons, it should be fixed=2E These kind of > > =C2=A0harmfulness look below the threshold to me at this moment though = I > > =C2=A0may be biased because I am still using them today=2E=2E=2E > > > > -- Hiroki --Chris From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 24 17:48:41 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2D9354FED; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49sVxd69Jfz4dFn; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OHmM8f047240 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:25 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: melifaro@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadv@dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OHmIuO055258 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:48:18 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" , "Rodney W. Grimes" References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <102621592983711@mail.yandex.ru> Cc: net , freebsd-hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:48:15 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <102621592983711@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49sVxd69Jfz4dFn X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.38 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.51)[-0.515]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.73)[-0.730]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.04)[-0.039]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:41 -0000 24.06.2020 15:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Different people have different opinions :-) > Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, but simple. > Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from "traditional" routing suites/daemons. > With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one direction. Btw, I do use RIPv2 in production these days (but with ripd, not routed) and I have several reasons to do so. First, RIPv2 is distance-vector protocol and has some advantages over OSPF for small-diameter but geographically distributed network (dictinct cities inter-connected with tunnels) as it does not require existence of "inseparable" backbone. RIPv2 offers richer ways to route filtering and/or preferring that you can achieve with OSPF only if you create distinct area for each router :-) Next, with years I came to decision running both OSPF and RIPv2 in parallel without route redistribution. This doubles my work initially at configuration stage but provides me with some protection against software failures. I can easily stop, debug and restart one of routing daemons while another one still runs so network has connectivity. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Jun 26 04:01:36 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A730634D08B for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 04:01:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ekraju@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com (mail-yb1-xb34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49tNVS0B2Nz41mQ for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 04:01:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ekraju@gmail.com) Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id o4so3845303ybp.0 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:01:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1mEzNkfOALgQf97AIhavpVqd6mi7skgR7v1hkZ7AP2U=; b=U/FCmMT7ie5lFMenVSVCKJSlR7rMGvvPW4WdrE9FhVV+soSsBnb5+ebh+U1rW5hME8 JxvqPMdx8wUmSM5nwsS/sBJYtSF/1fZIhzb9rGpb9TicRj+vHpBwYRYdwTim3XJ6awcY nGzv342yyoPTAUO7VZ0RmDMvgBHnpWnTgLKezqMpYnJ6YJr89hrSiciObsjmNBK3Y2LZ DpylcfzQ/mYR0KjdrRS9WIXJhg9eRPKEsxnIDCl17vFFzcGAVhnyPWWdzU1p/VnBH2Uk n/AHY39atOMJev0/AygnGMTnaRouhl2l7q9zBqhYHk+kcepNdkCYkWGL7ntUiEa94BpG vJYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1mEzNkfOALgQf97AIhavpVqd6mi7skgR7v1hkZ7AP2U=; b=He24VgRoj/PHmu+hqse110tNHNr3i0brANL2L0N6JRkYCuytA0EtXFN4SgDJZkVT0r 9PPlt9v/MJ3c+5P4MgWhIW3cZjaQeO6KOapY9cDF31urzB7hR8z5LGP+x3zbZjbcmKwo Qe7BSG2/A+VqUlODT8wDSJ8gL00bhGAN1XM1sTyl05a7oaohqY+qzQL0yS0SGIT2TLxz 8Ppik3x/ZRx1xrCUsCplKlQs0J76Zw+Anh+57393r+PGW2XiNg/9Gy4bfjsnN9Hawuwe KAWvxbKFPSur0n26s2CdNfWpeQM15loT4x9VUse6H3l34O6CWehVdZ3FbdPq2XUqm/6S VFwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334C7LMs7Cy5OZPID03qF6bslWgbwL1hnEuonQ3z0tYGTC+GsIl KF9o/xSiNpCHRaDcAYjjv0X/ESxUy04pwEH0jtRrbaIg X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJww7BRkVSuPAy9CreKaB0utgrvpAG7OTqyxrcvPLVkCbDpj+YODeKAx6pdt1gqhSwdjyn4LWlso3i3/a4m2sDc= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:cc9:: with SMTP id e9mr1764298ybr.287.1593144094529; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:01:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Krishnamraju Eraparaju Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:31:23 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: how to set up a nvme target over RAMDISK backend To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49tNVS0B2Nz41mQ X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=U/FCmMT7; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ekraju@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ekraju@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.13 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.002]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.01)[-1.008]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.12)[-0.125]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 04:01:36 -0000 Hi All, Could someone please help me in setting up a nvme target over RAMDISK backend(or any pseudo disk). Equivalent in Linux would be as below: modprobe null_blk modprobe nvmet modprobe nvmet_rdma mkdir /sys/kernel/config/nvmet/subsystems/nvme-ram0 mkdir /sys/kernel/config/nvmet/subsystems/nvme-ram0/namespaces/1 echo -n /dev/ram1 >/sys/kernel/config/nvmet/subsystems/nvme-ram0/namespaces/1/device_path echo 1 > /sys/kernel/config/nvmet/subsystems/nvme-ram0/attr_allow_any_host echo 1 > /sys/kernel/config/nvmet/subsystems/nvme-ram0/namespaces/1/enable Thanks. From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sat Jun 27 01:56:58 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51CD365A62; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 01:56:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from rainpuddle.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [IPv6:2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49txh93JQfz487G; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 01:56:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neel@neelc.org) Received: from mail.neelc.org (rainpuddle.neelc.org [IPv6:2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622]) by rainpuddle.neelc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 668EEEB298; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neelc.org; s=mail; t=1593223006; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q4UMQZN+nIWQKdNZg2nsmUBvZGoEw0OXF9Tp/MCkcZw=; b=eLYiQjPyV3A5tId7YZyR4JJZFTmE4Q1Eu38FX4s5wifAEx5NprbR/gDrxQnx44UGroxlRM L4vZRxfTiWWkEdTkXBsdUduE3dEksYR+RW6xZaDPVeiGNhhDVf7DxP1ZBodSBAUiu702d8 fkWURzTwjdvcdomx6nnw4JIuuvvmXIFSTe51DJS7J+LZ3cf/T2/Q/08jgDffg1PMw8lxoV kpFUP9RdIOfPTpbw+F5yzdSQPksNJADPo/7WlcopbICD7sJVrlOMO09as18C4u3vGp2YdO grYVKflsvZdFmfTABsR63QTAWiv7PXc62NUWb5PMSmzAuwww/S9oQYzM0GBPew== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:56:44 -0700 From: Neel Chauhan To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: mmacy@freebsd.org, bsdimp@freebsd.org Subject: r362666 breaking buildworld (don't know how to make nvpair.c) & Fix/Patch User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.2 Message-ID: X-Sender: neel@neelc.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49txh93JQfz487G X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=neelc.org header.s=mail header.b=eLYiQjPy; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=neelc.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of neel@neelc.org designates 2001:19f0:8001:fed:5400:2ff:fe73:c622 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=neel@neelc.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.16 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[neelc.org:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.98)[-0.981]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[neelc.org:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[neelc.org,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.29)[-0.287]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:20473, ipnet:2001:19f0:8000::/38, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 01:56:58 -0000 Hi, When I attempt to build world in 13-CURRENT, I get this error: ===> lib/libnv (obj,includes,all,install) [Creating objdir /usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/tmp/obj-tools/lib/libnv...] make[3]: make[3]: don't know how to make nvpair.c. Stop make[3]: stopped in /usr/src/lib/libnv *** [legacy] Error code 2 make[2]: stopped in /usr/src 1 error make[2]: stopped in /usr/src *** [_legacy] Error code 2 make[1]: stopped in /usr/src 1 error make[1]: stopped in /usr/src *** [buildworld] Error code 2 make: stopped in /usr/src 1 error make: stopped in /usr/src root@omen:/usr/src # The build broke with mmacy@'s commit r362666 which renamed nvpair.c to bsd_nvpair.c without renaming the Makefile. Is anyone else having this error? I have a patch to unbreak the build here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D25481 Does the patch work? Best, Neel Chauhan From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sat Jun 27 03:00:37 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32043340314; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:00:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49tz5c32jHz4CfQ; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:00:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id d12so5000212ply.1; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:00:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/ztT5HOfSigSjbJfW6AagrjxtxUENznc3JOfAkcgHOk=; b=ZQJkFNO3H3HpJrjxMxV75ZsgN9WkaQ2NGIKmzEKQUmYALYK68EdbCnGIHnEDKHVTeg i7vZCEFhZR2oyx5BqTWD4/ahxdGKV5TcpJSlSLhkQkvDmSA/40N8jTDuSnn0aZ3Ki9hZ m6FodV5oQILn3Rn4tCqnYAViv7fxZNH7uKwkb4Thy8I75GKd4tsS+N//CA8DolQZtOO6 vtUOceA6+iCQvRmxJr9IIb4aetdwHAQ3sHO4VwGCnLSIVotSEbeMzzo3DkA9cympZ57j +sY8GRTQIJMgzDuRj/f/ZInr0gunugjGOeNRKm/6CDG0MMG3UPmhdsWFYkhOhZJDXylv +AWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/ztT5HOfSigSjbJfW6AagrjxtxUENznc3JOfAkcgHOk=; b=FxQ2fPomC3V9k7hd8t6dQJH90IeoRq921ZK9x6Z+G5ChMkwNRZak+bitCDKIlxtAvt IcUHaGkcn67QxvvjNsZjgJU4CNicuoH1SvnNsoAYlDkWsvD0DincXRvvg9v9KK8qOu4r RJPpvofcoXrjry8uQrFJxV5I7Z5rkoPHplL6DLnVQ8/pRHClK3lWZHoKmyPgalGBZgd+ vaHcdHk27GTx9XXbjHTbU+T3KphjPB9LhEGI95BrHKH5bcBuSX7qvKEZUrO7JP14fDdO Ur5zN7Pw5GUrz+r6NoBz7Xtp1SIt4TMKl1NjxpR4WrUn+TnGA5ZqjCbRHqj1lXYfhWHO kZBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yCavbJBTnbXemyWu6KHvylnXmxdzHarC0yu/v+zvg5/Mh59Z+ ZEmEDQMYS8Qh/ydSgBfOyGmAaQiUT6Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdCg9fGZbriQ0KlxNpwxQ0Pd9Oo4nzh3gj7rxoUcxuwsBtwhrB5Sz2ITKomhD7SYQSOSgtkA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:488:: with SMTP id bh8mr3564065pjb.49.1593226834867; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.26] (c-73-19-52-228.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [73.19.52.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gp4sm12298391pjb.26.2020.06.26.20.00.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Subject: Re: r362666 breaking buildworld (don't know how to make nvpair.c) & Fix/Patch From: Enji Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:00:33 -0700 Cc: freebsd-current , mmacy@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Neel Chauhan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49tz5c32jHz4CfQ X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ZQJkFNO3; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of yaneurabeya@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::635 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yaneurabeya@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.09 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.63)[-0.625]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[73.19.52.228:received]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.95)[-0.954]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS(2.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org ..,freebsd-current@freebsd.org ...]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.01)[-1.011]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::635:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 06:16:50 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 03:00:37 -0000 (Moving hackers to BCC since the issue is current-related) > On Jun 26, 2020, at 6:56 PM, Neel Chauhan wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > When I attempt to build world in 13-CURRENT, I get this error: =E2=80=A6 > The build broke with mmacy@'s commit r362666 which renamed nvpair.c to = bsd_nvpair.c without renaming the Makefile. ... Hi Neel, It looks like the issue was recently fixed in r362669 by mmacy. Cheers! -Enji=