From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 8 22:54:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743B916A403; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:54:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lboehne@damogran.de) Received: from cthulhu.zoidberg.org (zoidberg.org [213.133.99.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B922343D45; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:54:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lboehne@damogran.de) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (dslb-084-063-010-182.pools.arcor-ip.net [::ffff:84.63.10.182]) (AUTH: PLAIN kasperle, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by cthulhu.zoidberg.org with esmtp; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:54:34 +0200 id 02033785.452981AA.00003A7F Message-ID: <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:54:00 +0200 From: Lutz Boehne User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060827) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Buzzard References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL License violation X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:54:37 -0000 Dear Jonathan, -hackers and -chat first of all, the freebsd-audit mailinglist has been dead for a few months now (I wonder why I'm even still subscribed, I think it has been officially retired some time ago) and your e-mail is not related to "FreeBSD Security Auditing" either. I'm not quite sure where your message would fit best, so for now I'm CCing freebsd-hackers and freebsd-chat. Regarding your issue: I tried several greps on a fresh copy of the FreeBSD RELENG_6 source tree and couldn't find the code you're referring to. For instance, egrepping recursively for "movl.*20.*eax.*edi" (which finds the line "movl 20(%%eax),%%edi\n\t" in Linuxes i8k.c just fine) will turn up any results. Also, grepping recursively for just the "lahf" instruction wouldn't find it in any context similar to the one you attached. Grepping for Dell or Toshiba didn't turn up anything useful either. There are at least three possibilities now: - my grep skills are lacking, or - the code is gone from the FreeBSD source (or it is not in RELENG_6, but -CURRENT), or - the person who sent you that e-mail is mistaken. In any case, I suggest you get back to that person and ask for more information. Regards, Lutz Jonathan Buzzard wrote: > I received an email yesterday asking about the license of some code > found in FreeBSD to turn the fan on a Dell laptop on/off, the code in > question is shown below. I do not know exactly where in FreeBSD this > code lies, as I do not use FreeBSD. Neither do I want or should have to > go looking for it. > > This code has been lifted verbatim out of drivers/char/i8k.c in Linux, > which in itself was a minor modification of code in > drivers/char/toshiba.c mdae by myself. This code dates back to January > 1998, and was first included in Linux around 2.2.20. I am the original > author of this code, and it is clearly and only ever licensed under the > GPL. I must insist that it be removed forwith from FreeBSD. > > JAB. > > > (cut along the line) > -------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<------- > > asm("pushl %%eax\n\t" \ > "movl 0(%%eax),%%edx\n\t" \ > "push %%edx\n\t" \ > "movl 4(%%eax),%%ebx\n\t" \ > "movl 8(%%eax),%%ecx\n\t" \ > "movl 12(%%eax),%%edx\n\t" \ > "movl 16(%%eax),%%esi\n\t" \ > "movl 20(%%eax),%%edi\n\t" \ > "popl %%eax\n\t" \ > "out %%al,$0xb2\n\t" \ > "out %%al,$0x84\n\t" \ > "xchgl %%eax,(%%esp)\n\t" > "movl %%ebx,4(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "movl %%ecx,8(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "movl %%edx,12(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "movl %%esi,16(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "movl %%edi,20(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "popl %%edx\n\t" \ > "movl %%edx,0(%%eax)\n\t" \ > "lahf\n\t" \ > "shrl $8,%%eax\n\t" \ > "andl $1,%%eax\n" \ > : "=a" (rc) > : "a" (regs) > : "%ebx", "%ecx", "%edx", "%esi", "%edi", "memory"); > > > if ((rc != 0) || ((regs->eax & 0xffff) == 0xffff) || (regs->eax == > eax)) > { > return -1; > } > > -------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<------- > > > -- Lutz Boehne - http://www.damogran.de From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 8 23:03:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFAF16A40F; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:03:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CD343D69; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:03:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k98N2Ik6090554; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:02:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:01:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> To: lboehne@damogran.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:02:18 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org, jonathan@buzzard.me.uk, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:03:34 -0000 In message: <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> Lutz Boehne writes: : In any case, I suggest you get back to that person and ask for more : information. That was my suggestion as well. I grepped the entire tree, both ports and src, and couldn't find any code that came close to resembling this code. Googling shows two packages that contain this code, but those aren't part of FreeBSD and they are distributed under the LGPL and the GPL. Finally, there was no need to forward this to hackers@ or chat@. Not only did I see it in audit, several people forwarded this to core@ for investigation. Warner From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 03:17:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B5B16A412; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:17:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org (tarsier.geekcn.org [210.51.165.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431E43D49; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 03:17:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from localhost (tarsier.geekcn.org [210.51.165.229]) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6133EB0F7E; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:17:13 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at geekcn.org Received: from tarsier.geekcn.org ([210.51.165.229]) by localhost (mail.geekcn.org [210.51.165.229]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jv751+ayG8Ai; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:17:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.217.12.40] (sina152-194.staff.sina.com.cn [61.135.152.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tarsier.geekcn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382E0EB0F82; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:17:09 +0800 (CST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=default; d=delphij.net; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=pqfufFcaja4fTzmGkKvSxtg4KZ5Cj9nU55M9GdFkMpht4fOB+MQuwwd2x2/7QX67V 50I/P+QWHgDl3ywAD3ogg== Message-ID: <4529BF26.1040108@delphij.net> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:16:54 +0800 From: LI Xin Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB1859D585A1145D2E166149C" Cc: Subject: Call for testers: Replace GNU gzip with NetBSD's gzip implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:17:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB1859D585A1145D2E166149C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Here is a patchset that replaces the GNU gzip with NetBSD's gzip implementation, which uses zlib to do actual compress/decompress operatio= n: Go to your src/usr.bin and execute the following shar archive: http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/bsd_gzip/shar-bsd-gzip-2006= 1009 Then, go to src/ and apply the following patch: http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/bsd_gzip/patch-remove-gnu-g= zip-01 Currently this gzip implementation should work as a drop-in replacement for GNU gzip. I am still working on some style issues here, etc., so the current focus is functional test. Any sort of comments are welcome. Cheers, --=20 Xin LI http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! --------------enigB1859D585A1145D2E166149C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFKb8mOfuToMruuMARA7NUAJ9QyWq+D8z1MV/A8kMhxTbOX5ay1QCfZdRc OIkQAa7bc1+63Nv8WNuVfnQ= =WMNJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB1859D585A1145D2E166149C-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 09:04:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842E116A40F; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:04:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from poup.poupinou.org (poup.poupinou.org [195.101.94.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141DD43D5F; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:03:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from ducrot by poup.poupinou.org with local (Exim) id 1GWr32-0008DK-00; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:03:44 +0200 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:03:44 +0200 To: jonathan@buzzard.me.uk Message-ID: <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bruno Ducrot Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, lboehne@damogran.de, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:04:05 -0000 On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 05:01:30PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> > Lutz Boehne writes: > : In any case, I suggest you get back to that person and ask for more > : information. > > That was my suggestion as well. I grepped the entire tree, both ports > and src, and couldn't find any code that came close to resembling this > code. > > Googling shows two packages that contain this code, but those aren't > part of FreeBSD and they are distributed under the LGPL and the GPL. > > Finally, there was no need to forward this to hackers@ or chat@. Not > only did I see it in audit, several people forwarded this to core@ for > investigation. > I'm working on Dell's laptop support, even though I'm not the one who code a tool for a fan control (and I don't know if such tool under FreeBSD exist). Some preminaly code can be found here: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/i8kutils_bsd.tar.bz [1] http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/acpi_dell.tar.gz [2] http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/dellctl.tar.gz [3] For now, the 3 tar ball above have not been publically send to any public list I'm aware of, because those are only priminally work. For [1], people can check I haven't removed any copyright, nor I even bothered adding my name. In any case, I don't plan to add that one to the base system. In fact, I think to remove it from http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/ in the near future. For [2], people can check it's a really preliminary work, and is based on some calls to ACPI methods under the DSDT. Since it's a really different approach taken from the driver found under Linux, it's free from any GPL'ed code. Finally [3] is only a userspace tool to control [2]. Since [2] and [3] are free from any GPL'ed codes, I consider commiting them if one day they work. Actually I even considered to port [2] under Linux, because this is the right way to go when ACPI mode is enabled for obvious reason. The io ports related to the SMM handler are shared, and ACPI take care to handle an ACPI mutex before entering SMM, that at least might eliminate strange cases when sometimes i8k doesn't work. Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 10:34:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B0C16A40F; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:34:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from flz@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBFA43D4C; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:34:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from flz@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.xbsd.org (unknown [82.233.2.192]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D4825CA2; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:34:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost.xbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.xbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF1E11963; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:34:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.xbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv1.xbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48087-07; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mayday.esat.net (mayday.esat.net [193.95.134.156]) by smtp.xbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E784211942; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:34:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Florent Thoumie To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-w8BDeEn8fu9c/vst446N" Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:34:24 +0100 Message-Id: <1160390064.76522.23.camel@mayday.esat.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at xbsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org Subject: FreeBSD Test-Bugathon.... check X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:34:35 -0000 --=-w8BDeEn8fu9c/vst446N Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Following the example of our friends from NetBSD. We organized this week-end what they called a Bugathon. Basically, people gather on an IRC channel and discuss about some Problem Reports they either sent or are interested in. This is a great opportunity to get things done faster and get in touch with committers. The Bugathon was only announced on -ports because we weren't sure to get enough src committers, mainly because of the very short notice (it was decided on friday evening CET). Anyway, the result of the Test-Bugathon is that around 140 PRs have been closed (kern:8, bin:2, ports:~100, i386:1, docs:7, www:4, usb:14, conf:4, amd64:1). I'd like to thank all the committers and participants who came, it was a lot of fun. The test has proven its point so we'll definitely make new bugathons in the near future. We haven't settled on a date yet, but an announcement will be made once the date will be decided, at least two weeks before the event. In the meantime, don't hesitate to come to the IRC channel #freebsd-bugbusters on EFNET or subscribe to the freebsd-bugbusters mailing list. Have fun fixing bugs! --=20 Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Committer --=-w8BDeEn8fu9c/vst446N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFKiWwMxEkbVFH3PQRAgEtAJsFsK+HCt6RiOVp9uXNWKGRLaeWbwCcDcpZ u3wuRVonvB6Xz3Dvf0eXt9k= =D6wr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-w8BDeEn8fu9c/vst446N-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 11:09:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F4516A4B3 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:09:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051FF43D72 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:08:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (linimon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k99B8QeS071519 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:08:26 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from linimon@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k99B8P8R071515 for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:08:25 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:08:25 GMT Message-Id: <200610091108.k99B8P8R071515@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: linimon set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Current problem reports assigned to you X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:09:28 -0000 Current FreeBSD problem reports Critical problems Serious problems Non-critical problems S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o ports/99485 hackers Disk IO Causes multimedia/mplayer To Drop Frames 1 problem total. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 16:13:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7EC16A403 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:13:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mail@maxlor.com) Received: from popeye1.ggamaur.net (popeye1.ggamaur.net [213.160.40.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3998443D55 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:13:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mail@maxlor.com) Received: from maxlor.mine.nu (maxlor@c-213-160-32-54.customer.ggaweb.ch [213.160.32.54]) by popeye1.ggamaur.net (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) with ESMTP id k99GDBWA006898 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:12 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mail@maxlor.com) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by maxlor.mine.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132C82E13B for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at atlantis.intranet Received: from maxlor.mine.nu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlantis.intranet [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PyokiNGfSJiw for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from merlin.intranet (merlin.intranet [10.0.0.16]) by maxlor.mine.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC79F2E125 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Benjamin Lutz To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:07 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 X-Face: $Ov27?7*N,h60fIEfNJdb!m,@#4T/d; 1hw|W0zvsHM(a$Yn6BYQ0^SEEXvi8>D`|V*F"_+R 2@Aq>+mNb4`,'[[%z9v0Fa~]AD1}xQO3|>b.z&}l#R-_(P`?@Mz"kS; XC>Eti,i3>%@g?4f,\c7|Gh wb&ky$b2PJ^\0b83NkLsFKv|smL/cI4UD%Tu8alAD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart23708676.8NWsF7UCKN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200610091813.10453.mail@maxlor.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 213.160.40.60 Subject: man(1) and locale codeset X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:13:17 -0000 --nextPart23708676.8NWsF7UCKN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hello, While investigating how to get proper quotes in manpages (proper as=20 explained here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/quotes.html) I found=20 that groff outputs correct quote characters (well, for single quotation=20 marks anyway) with -Tutf8. When looking at the man(1) source code, I saw=20 that the code contains support for specifying a -T parameter based on the=20 codeset of the LC_ALL environment variable. See for example in /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/man/man/man.c: - line 99, definition of ltable. - line 956, appending of -T parameter to parameter list based on locale_opts. However, lines 1645-1646 and 1697-1698 (my src tree is from FreeBSD 6.2,=20 in case the lines differ look for "locale_opts =3D NULL") disable locale=20 codeset support completely, which cause man to revert to -Tascii. If I=20 comment out those 4 lines, I get UTF-8 manpages with correct single quote=20 characters. What is the reason behind disabling locale support like this? Could this=20 be changed? Cheers Benjamin --nextPart23708676.8NWsF7UCKN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFKnUWzZEjpyKHuQwRAvE8AJ0cs9xXNWBzMkZ5nV7O+gBUCutSdwCfXUIn Rngm07PUzDwYiqQLMWBCLgc= =9JFd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart23708676.8NWsF7UCKN-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 21:37:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DEC16A40F for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:37:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: from porthos.spock.org (porthos.spock.org [204.97.176.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440A743D4C for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:37:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: from porthos.spock.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porthos.spock.org with ESMTP serial EF600Q3T-B7F8823k99LbXrF020529F7T for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:37:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: (from jon@localhost) by porthos.spock.org (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) id k99LbXO2020528 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:37:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jon) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:37:33 -0400 From: Jonathan Chen To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 204.97.176.45 Subject: bktr(4) risk? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:37:35 -0000 While trying to resurrect meteor(4), I've been looking over the bktr driver. It seems that the bktr driver implements the METEORSVIDEO ioctl, which appears to allow userland programs to specify a physical memory address to which the bktr hardware should dump it's output. At first glance, this seems like a rather bad idea, as this would allow anyone armed with the bktr file descriptor to arbitrarily trash any memory, and the bktr device comes with a friendly default permission of 0444. The only reason I can think of to use this ioctl would be if you wanted the image you're capturing to be directly dumped into video memory. This doesn't seem too useful a task for a video capture card to be doing. Perhaps we should put a test for write access in there or just eliminate the ioctl altogether. It should be noted that the meteor driver had this ioctl ifdef'ed out prior to its removal. Disclaimer: I don't have access to a bktr myself, nor am I very familiar with the intricacies of DMA, so someone with the expertise or the hardware should check my reasoning or test an exploit before panicing. -Jon From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 23:27:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C482316A403; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (gate.funkthat.com [69.17.45.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DC943D73; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:26:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (lv0lwfype3j3xm72@localhost.funkthat.com [127.0.0.1]) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k99NQoPe001238; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: (from jmg@localhost) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/Submit) id k99NQoqs001237; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:26:50 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Jonathan Chen Message-ID: <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Chen , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p6 i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: B7 EC EF F8 AE ED A7 31 96 7A 22 B3 D8 56 36 F4 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bktr(4) risk? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:27:02 -0000 Jonathan Chen wrote this message on Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 17:37 -0400: > While trying to resurrect meteor(4), I've been looking over the bktr > driver. It seems that the bktr driver implements the METEORSVIDEO ioctl, > which appears to allow userland programs to specify a physical memory > address to which the bktr hardware should dump it's output. At first Yes, it does... > glance, this seems like a rather bad idea, as this would allow anyone armed > with the bktr file descriptor to arbitrarily trash any memory, and the bktr > device comes with a friendly default permission of 0444. > > The only reason I can think of to use this ioctl would be if you wanted the > image you're capturing to be directly dumped into video memory. This This is very common... It allows the bktr driver to dump the frames directly to the memory of your video card... This makes watching live tv watchable... > doesn't seem too useful a task for a video capture card to be doing. > Perhaps we should put a test for write access in there or just eliminate > the ioctl altogether. It should be noted that the meteor driver had this > ioctl ifdef'ed out prior to its removal. Hmmm... I think I'll go ahead and put in a compatibility ioctl based on the way I did the zoran driver, and schedule the removal of the ioctl.. > Disclaimer: I don't have access to a bktr myself, nor am I very familiar > with the intricacies of DMA, so someone with the expertise or the hardware > should check my reasoning or test an exploit before panicing. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 23:39:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7E016A412 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:39:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: from porthos.spock.org (porthos.spock.org [204.97.176.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954C543DBA for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:39:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: from porthos.spock.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by porthos.spock.org with ESMTP serial EF600Q3T-B7F; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:39:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jon@porthos.spock.org) Received: (from jon@localhost) by porthos.spock.org (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) id k99Nd3CW025771; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:39:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jon) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:39:03 -0400 From: Jonathan Chen To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061009233903.GB20969@porthos.spock.org> References: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 204.97.176.45 Cc: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: bktr(4) risk? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:39:46 -0000 On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:26:50PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Jonathan Chen wrote this message on Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 17:37 -0400: > > The only reason I can think of to use this ioctl would be if you wanted the > > image you're capturing to be directly dumped into video memory. This > > This is very common... It allows the bktr driver to dump the frames > directly to the memory of your video card... This makes watching live > tv watchable... Yes, how stupid of me to not think of people wanting to just watch a live feed from their capture card... > > doesn't seem too useful a task for a video capture card to be doing. > > Perhaps we should put a test for write access in there or just eliminate > > the ioctl altogether. It should be noted that the meteor driver had this > > ioctl ifdef'ed out prior to its removal. > > Hmmm... I think I'll go ahead and put in a compatibility ioctl based > on the way I did the zoran driver, and schedule the removal of the > ioctl.. Zoran driver? Can I have a pointer or a summary of what you did there so I can do the same to meteor(4)? -Jon From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 00:40:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C1216A40F; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:40:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F41A43D46; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:40:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from inchoate.gsoft.com.au (inchoate.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.37]) (authenticated bits=0) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.13.5/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9A0eX0S018734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:10:34 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:10:28 +0930 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3365112.JbZYhsDE0f"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200610101010.29188.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> X-Spam-Score: -1.36 () ALL_TRUSTED X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 203.31.81.10 Cc: Jonathan Chen Subject: Re: bktr(4) risk? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:40:40 -0000 --nextPart3365112.JbZYhsDE0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 10 October 2006 08:56, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > The only reason I can think of to use this ioctl would be if you wanted > > the image you're capturing to be directly dumped into video memory. Th= is > > This is very common... It allows the bktr driver to dump the frames > directly to the memory of your video card... This makes watching live > tv watchable... Maybe it could be restricted to the root user. In any case it's more efficient to read YUV data and then use Xv.. It=20 certainly spams the PCI bus way less, unfortunately you do become acceptabl= e=20 to load related frame drops. It would be really nice if you could connect bktr to your video card more=20 directly (instead of cap. card -> bktr -> TV app -> X server -> video card) but in practice it seems to work fine. mplayer can do this, and I have a=20 trivial app which also does it (I wrote it before mplayer grew support for= =20 bktr) =2D-=20 Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C --nextPart3365112.JbZYhsDE0f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFKuv95ZPcIHs/zowRAjwSAJ0a3sjVUE9mDOYmRel4e1OkbpUaRgCfZQxd A3MYB3PQ37+Xrj1cmcKR0gY= =W650 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3365112.JbZYhsDE0f-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 00:43:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACEE16A518; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:43:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (gate.funkthat.com [69.17.45.168]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2421543D79; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:43:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: from hydrogen.funkthat.com (zzyi7tkttlmx5pa9@localhost.funkthat.com [127.0.0.1]) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k9A0hU8U002340; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:43:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg@hydrogen.funkthat.com) Received: (from jmg@localhost) by hydrogen.funkthat.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/Submit) id k9A0hUoB002339; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:43:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmg) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:43:29 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney To: Jonathan Chen Message-ID: <20061010004329.GU793@funkthat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Chen , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20061009213733.GC15088@porthos.spock.org> <20061009232649.GT793@funkthat.com> <20061009233903.GB20969@porthos.spock.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061009233903.GB20969@porthos.spock.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p6 i386 X-PGP-Fingerprint: B7 EC EF F8 AE ED A7 31 96 7A 22 B3 D8 56 36 F4 X-Files: The truth is out there X-URL: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/ X-Resume: http://resnet.uoregon.edu/~gurney_j/resume.html Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bktr(4) risk? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:43:39 -0000 Jonathan Chen wrote this message on Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 19:39 -0400: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:26:50PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Jonathan Chen wrote this message on Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 17:37 -0400: > > > doesn't seem too useful a task for a video capture card to be doing. > > > Perhaps we should put a test for write access in there or just eliminate > > > the ioctl altogether. It should be noted that the meteor driver had this > > > ioctl ifdef'ed out prior to its removal. > > > > Hmmm... I think I'll go ahead and put in a compatibility ioctl based > > on the way I did the zoran driver, and schedule the removal of the > > ioctl.. > > Zoran driver? Can I have a pointer or a summary of what you did there so I > can do the same to meteor(4)? http://people.freebsd.org/~jmg/zoran.html There is a function verify_contig in zr_os.c, but we should teach meteor(4) and friends how to use bus_dma to do the buffer now that I think about it... The work that I do to verify that the buffer is contiguous should be done by bus_dma... We should make the user process mmap the video buffer, and then pass the user's address to the driver... Using a properly crafted uio struct, you can use bus_dmamap_load_uio to get the correct physical address of the buffer to program the card with... You can create a tag w/ only 1 segment to ensure that the mapping will be contigious... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 02:26:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F47916A407; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6B043D45; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (linimon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9A2QYEi061951; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:34 GMT (envelope-from linimon@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from linimon@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k9A2QYih061947; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:34 GMT (envelope-from linimon) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:34 GMT From: Mark Linimon Message-Id: <200610100226.k9A2QYih061947@freefall.freebsd.org> To: linimon@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/99485: Disk IO Causes multimedia/mplayer To Drop Frames X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:26:35 -0000 Synopsis: Disk IO Causes multimedia/mplayer To Drop Frames Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-hackers->freebsd-bugs Responsible-Changed-By: linimon Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Oct 10 02:24:33 UTC 2006 Responsible-Changed-Why: Fix up Category and Responsible. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=99485 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 06:45:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDBF16A415; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ganbold@micom.mng.net) Received: from publicd.ub.mng.net (publicd.ub.mng.net [202.179.0.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF3443D53; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ganbold@micom.mng.net) Received: from [202.179.0.164] (helo=[192.168.0.18]) by publicd.ub.mng.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1GXBMg-0002lX-2D; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:22 +0800 Message-ID: <452B4181.7060800@micom.mng.net> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:45:21 +0800 From: Ganbold User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060612) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruno Ducrot References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org, lboehne@damogran.de, jonathan@buzzard.me.uk, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:45 -0000 Bruno Ducrot wrote: > I'm working on Dell's laptop support, even though I'm not > the one who code a tool for a fan control (and I don't > know if such tool under FreeBSD exist). > > Some preminaly code can be found here: > > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/i8kutils_bsd.tar.bz [1] > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/acpi_dell.tar.gz [2] > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/dellctl.tar.gz [3] > > Bruno, Did you make suspend/resume work? Did you make your volume up/down key work? I have Latitude D620 and can't make above work. thanks, Ganbold > For now, the 3 tar ball above have not been publically send to any > public list I'm aware of, because those are only priminally work. > > For [1], people can check I haven't removed any copyright, nor I even > bothered adding my name. In any case, I don't plan to add that one to > the base system. > In fact, I think to remove it from http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/ > in the near future. > > For [2], people can check it's a really preliminary work, and is based > on some calls to ACPI methods under the DSDT. Since it's a really > different approach taken from the driver found under Linux, it's free > from any GPL'ed code. > > Finally [3] is only a userspace tool to control [2]. > > Since [2] and [3] are free from any GPL'ed codes, I consider commiting > them if one day they work. > > Actually I even considered to port [2] under Linux, because this is > the right way to go when ACPI mode is enabled for obvious reason. > The io ports related to the SMM handler are shared, and ACPI take > care to handle an ACPI mutex before entering SMM, that at least might > eliminate strange cases when sometimes i8k doesn't work. > > Cheers, > From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 08:18:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B5D16A407; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:18:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from poup.poupinou.org (poup.poupinou.org [195.101.94.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB3343D7F; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:18:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from ducrot by poup.poupinou.org with local (Exim) id 1GXCob-0005Wk-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:18:17 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:18:17 +0200 To: Jonathan Buzzard Message-ID: <20061010081816.GO4945@poupinou.org> References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> <452AA8BA.4050808@buzzard.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452AA8BA.4050808@buzzard.me.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bruno Ducrot Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, lboehne@damogran.de, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:18:35 -0000 On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:53:30PM +0100, Jonathan Buzzard wrote: > Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > > I'm working on Dell's laptop support, even though I'm not > > the one who code a tool for a fan control (and I don't > > know if such tool under FreeBSD exist). > > > > Some preminaly code can be found here: > > > > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/i8kutils_bsd.tar.bz [1] > > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/acpi_dell.tar.gz [2] > > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/dellctl.tar.gz [3] > > > > For now, the 3 tar ball above have not been publically send to any > > public list I'm aware of, because those are only priminally work. > > > > For [1], people can check I haven't removed any copyright, nor I even > > bothered adding my name. In any case, I don't plan to add that one to > > the base system. > > In fact, I think to remove it from http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/ > > in the near future. > > > > For [2], people can check it's a really preliminary work, and is based > > on some calls to ACPI methods under the DSDT. Since it's a really > > different approach taken from the driver found under Linux, it's free > > from any GPL'ed code. > > > > Finally [3] is only a userspace tool to control [2]. > > > > Since [2] and [3] are free from any GPL'ed codes, I consider commiting > > them if one day they work. > > > > Actually I even considered to port [2] under Linux, because this is > > the right way to go when ACPI mode is enabled for obvious reason. > > The io ports related to the SMM handler are shared, and ACPI take > > care to handle an ACPI mutex before entering SMM, that at least might > > eliminate strange cases when sometimes i8k doesn't work. > > There is already a Toshiba ACPI module that does that I believe. Or at > least it exposes a /dev/toshiba that enables you to but the laptop into > SMM in the same was as the Toshiba/Dell drivers do. Not exactly. The ACPI method for the Toshiba is not the same as for the Dell. Toshiba use \_SB_.VALD.GHCI() method in order to access the HCI whereas Dell use \SMI() (and other methods). They are different and don't share any API I'm aware of, but I may be wrong of course. > I still use a 2.4 kernel and hence APM as I have never gotten around to > upgrading to 2.6, as this is complicated by running an entirely LVM system. > > You are however correct that ACPI is the correct way to go. Depend. If APM work better for you there is no reason to enable ACPI after all. Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 08:56:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A33816A403; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:56:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from poup.poupinou.org (poup.poupinou.org [195.101.94.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E90043D5E; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:56:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org) Received: from ducrot by poup.poupinou.org with local (Exim) id 1GXDOd-0005ZH-00; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:55:31 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:55:31 +0200 To: Ganbold Message-ID: <20061010085531.GP4945@poupinou.org> References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> <452B4181.7060800@micom.mng.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452B4181.7060800@micom.mng.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bruno Ducrot Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org, lboehne@damogran.de, jonathan@buzzard.me.uk, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:56:43 -0000 On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:45:21PM +0800, Ganbold wrote: > Bruno, > > Did you make suspend/resume work? Unrelated. acpi_dell isn't for suspend/resume. But I'm aware of the problem and I'm working on that. > Did you make your volume up/down key work? That one of the goal. But there is a need to work more and I'm waiting some input from someone in touch with Dell BIOS engineers. That why I said this doesn't work, and why I haven't yet made them public. But I don't know if Jonathan Buzzard was aware of that work and if his complain was related to this work. > I have Latitude D620 and can't make above work. I might get one D620 soon hopefully. I will then be able to work more on this support. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 13:24:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DD616A412 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from unledev@gmail.com) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2965E43D5F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from unledev@gmail.com) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so701274uge for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:24:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=X2vt6MiyDBCYrUGpQkuaBsbMdjGkML7pDYRRpYpJwQrSaFvdGUQwLNcYHOf7gNuh37KutKUdGx6JaoHRWVSyfuIFemDzOBGoGrO1P25alCzJvZMIqVvgnTcxbFfSa8+erlDUmP4lWxnH6YljBp/J6efv3U82+TPZINW1AYRPHVM= Received: by 10.82.129.5 with SMTP id b5mr770691bud; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.134.12 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5e4707340610100624j38ce9f8du7741bd027eb8cb1b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:24:14 +0200 From: "Alex Unleashed" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_3114_11217464.1160486654346" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: mkdir -m option POSIX compliance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:16 -0000 ------=_Part_3114_11217464.1160486654346 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, "mkdir -m mode -p /some/directory" calls chmod() on /some/directory even if it already exists, effectively changing the mode. POSIX specifies that this mode may only be applied to newly created directories. Patch attached. Please look at the URLs referenced in the patch for further information. Thanks, Alex ------=_Part_3114_11217464.1160486654346 Content-Type: text/x-patch; name=mkdir-posixize-mode-option.patch; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Attachment-Id: f_et4bluig Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mkdir-posixize-mode-option.patch" LS0tIGJpbi9ta2Rpci9ta2Rpci5jCTIwMDYtMTAtMTAgMTM6NTg6NTMuMDAwMDAwMDAwICswMjAw CisrKyBiaW4vbWtkaXIvbWtkaXIuYwkyMDA2LTEwLTEwIDE1OjA5OjMyLjAwMDAwMDAwMCArMDIw MApAQCAtNjEsMTIgKzYxLDEyIEBACiBpbnQKIG1haW4oaW50IGFyZ2MsIGNoYXIgKmFyZ3ZbXSkK IHsKLQlpbnQgY2gsIGV4aXR2YWwsIHN1Y2Nlc3MsIHBmbGFnOworCWludCBjaCwgZXhpdHZhbCwg c3VjY2VzcywgcGZsYWcsIG9sZGRpcmZsYWc7CiAJbW9kZV90IG9tb2RlOwogCXZvaWQgKnNldCA9 IE5VTEw7CiAJY2hhciAqbW9kZTsKIAotCW9tb2RlID0gcGZsYWcgPSAwOworCW9tb2RlID0gcGZs YWcgPSBvbGRkaXJmbGFnID0gMDsKIAltb2RlID0gTlVMTDsKIAl3aGlsZSAoKGNoID0gZ2V0b3B0 KGFyZ2MsIGFyZ3YsICJtOnB2IikpICE9IC0xKQogCQlzd2l0Y2goY2gpIHsKQEAgLTEwMSw4ICsx MDEsMTEgQEAKIAlmb3IgKGV4aXR2YWwgPSAwOyAqYXJndiAhPSBOVUxMOyArK2FyZ3YpIHsKIAkJ c3VjY2VzcyA9IDE7CiAJCWlmIChwZmxhZykgewotCQkJaWYgKGJ1aWxkKCphcmd2LCBvbW9kZSkp Ci0JCQkJc3VjY2VzcyA9IDA7CisJCQlpZiAoKHN1Y2Nlc3MgPSBidWlsZCgqYXJndiwgb21vZGUp KSA9PSAyKSB7CisJCQkJLyogdGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yeSBleGlzdGVkICovCisJCQkJb2xkZGlyZmxh ZyA9IDE7CisJCQkJc3VjY2VzcyA9IDE7CisJCQl9CiAJCX0gZWxzZSBpZiAobWtkaXIoKmFyZ3Ys IG9tb2RlKSA8IDApIHsKIAkJCWlmIChlcnJubyA9PSBFTk9URElSIHx8IGVycm5vID09IEVOT0VO VCkKIAkJCQl3YXJuKCIlcyIsIGRpcm5hbWUoKmFyZ3YpKTsKQEAgLTEyMCw4ICsxMjMsMTYgQEAK IAkJICogc3RpY2t5LCBzZXR1aWQsIHNldGdpZCBiaXRzIHlvdSBsb3NlIHRoZW0uICBEb24ndCBk bwogCQkgKiB0aGlzIHVubGVzcyB0aGUgdXNlciBoYXMgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IHJlcXVlc3RlZCBh IG1vZGUsCiAJCSAqIGFzIGNobW9kIHdpbGwgKG9idmlvdXNseSkgaWdub3JlIHRoZSB1bWFzay4K KwkJICoKKwkJICogRG8gdGhpcyBvbmx5IG9uIF9uZXdseS1jcmVhdGVkXyBkaXJlY3Rvcmllcywg bm90IHRob3NlCisJCSAqIGFscmVhZHkgZXhpc3RpbmcuIFNlZSAtbSBvcHRpb24gZm9yIG1rZGly IGluOgorCQkgKgorCQkgKiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm9wZW5ncm91cC5vcmcvb25saW5lcHVicy8wMDk2 OTUzOTkvdXRpbGl0aWVzL21rZGlyLmh0bWwKKwkJICoKKwkJICogUmVhZCBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMu Z251Lm9yZy9hcmNoaXZlL2h0bWwvYnVnLWF1dG9jb25mLzIwMDYtMTAvbXNnMDAwMTIuaHRtbAor CQkgKiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgdGhyZWFkIGZvciBmdXJ0aGVyIGRldGFpbHMuCiAJCSAqLwotCQlp ZiAoc3VjY2VzcyAmJiBtb2RlICE9IE5VTEwgJiYgY2htb2QoKmFyZ3YsIG9tb2RlKSA9PSAtMSkg eworCQlpZiAoc3VjY2VzcyAmJiBtb2RlICE9IE5VTEwgJiYgIW9sZGRpcmZsYWcgJiYgY2htb2Qo KmFyZ3YsIG9tb2RlKSA9PSAtMSkgewogCQkJd2FybigiJXMiLCAqYXJndik7CiAJCQlleGl0dmFs ID0gMTsKIAkJfQpAQCAtMTI5LDYgKzE0MCwxNyBAQAogCWV4aXQoZXhpdHZhbCk7CiB9CiAKKy8q CisgKiBUaGUgYnVpbGQoKSBmdW5jdGlvbiByZXR1cm5zIDAgd2hlbiBmYWlsZWQsCisgKiAxIG9u IHN1Y2Nlc3MsIGFuZCAyIHdoZW4gdGhlIHRhcmdldCBkaXJlY3RvcnkKKyAqIGRpZCBhbHJlYWR5 IGV4aXN0LgorICoKKyAqIFRoaXMgaXMgYmVjYXVzZSB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGRpZmZlcmVudGlhdGUg dGhlCisgKiBjYXNlcyBpbiB3aGljaCB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3J5IGhhcyBiZWVuIGNyZWF0ZWQKKyAq IGZyb20gdGhvc2UgaW4gd2hpY2ggaXQgaGFzbid0IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUKKyAqIFBPU0lYIGNvbXBs aWFuY2Ugd2hlbiBzcGVjaWZ5aW5nIGEgbW9kZS4KKyAqLworCiBpbnQKIGJ1aWxkKGNoYXIgKnBh dGgsIG1vZGVfdCBvbW9kZSkKIHsKQEAgLTEzOSw3ICsxNjEsNyBAQAogCiAJcCA9IHBhdGg7CiAJ b3VtYXNrID0gMDsKLQlyZXR2YWwgPSAwOworCXJldHZhbCA9IDE7CiAJaWYgKHBbMF0gPT0gJy8n KQkJLyogU2tpcCBsZWFkaW5nICcvJy4gKi8KIAkJKytwOwogCWZvciAoZmlyc3QgPSAxLCBsYXN0 ID0gMDsgIWxhc3QgOyArK3ApIHsKQEAgLTE3NCw3ICsxOTYsNyBAQAogCQkJaWYgKGVycm5vID09 IEVFWElTVCB8fCBlcnJubyA9PSBFSVNESVIpIHsKIAkJCQlpZiAoc3RhdChwYXRoLCAmc2IpIDwg MCkgewogCQkJCQl3YXJuKCIlcyIsIHBhdGgpOwotCQkJCQlyZXR2YWwgPSAxOworCQkJCQlyZXR2 YWwgPSAwOwogCQkJCQlicmVhazsKIAkJCQl9IGVsc2UgaWYgKCFTX0lTRElSKHNiLnN0X21vZGUp KSB7CiAJCQkJCWlmIChsYXN0KQpAQCAtMTgyLDEyICsyMDQsMTUgQEAKIAkJCQkJZWxzZQogCQkJ CQkJZXJybm8gPSBFTk9URElSOwogCQkJCQl3YXJuKCIlcyIsIHBhdGgpOwotCQkJCQlyZXR2YWwg PSAxOworCQkJCQlyZXR2YWwgPSAwOwogCQkJCQlicmVhazsKIAkJCQl9CisJCQkJLyogSXQncyBh IGRpcmVjdG9yeSwgYW5kIHdlIGRpZG4ndCBjcmVhdGUgaXQgKi8KKwkJCQlpZiAobGFzdCkKKwkJ CQkJcmV0dmFsID0gMjsKIAkJCX0gZWxzZSB7CiAJCQkJd2FybigiJXMiLCBwYXRoKTsKLQkJCQly ZXR2YWwgPSAxOworCQkJCXJldHZhbCA9IDA7CiAJCQkJYnJlYWs7CiAJCQl9CiAJCX0gZWxzZSBp ZiAodmZsYWcpCg== ------=_Part_3114_11217464.1160486654346-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 14:06:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34E716A4E6; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:06:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@freebsd.org) Received: from natial.ongs.co.jp (natial.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.58]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD92E43D58; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:05:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from daichi@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (dullmdaler.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.62]) by natial.ongs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D497244C2C; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:05:57 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <452BA8C4.7040906@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:05:56 +0900 From: Daichi GOTO User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060915) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, rodrigc@crodrigues.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: daichi@freebsd.org, ozawa@ongs.co.jp Subject: [REQUEST] unionfs needs some guys can do implements new 2 APIs for VFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:06:00 -0000 Hi Guys! Now we need a man or a guy who can do implements new 2 APIs for VFS. Someone please help us!! http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/request-new-api-for-vfs.html ---- The FreeBSD new unionfs implementation: New API request for FreeBSD VFS ======================================================================= Daichi GOTO (daichi@freebsd.org) 1 Introduction We have always tried to keep changes just in unionfs segment only. But by accomplish nothing, we need change the other segment. 2 Problem Description Until now we have did many improvements for unionfs, but now we feel the limication arount the process of unionfs's "copied-up file". Additional thinking of future support for MAC extention, ADVLOCK lock infomation and somethinkg like those, all the more reason to be careful. 3 Impact It leads the confution of unionfs implementation and some problem around lock mechanism. We cannot solve those problem by just only changes in unionfs segument. 4 Solution Request We need new 2 APIs(functions) for VFS. Please some developer do implement new APIs like as follow: int VOP_GETALLATTR(struct vnode *vp, struct vnode_xxx *data, struct thread *td) { set the all attr to data from vp; ...; } int VOP_SETALLATTR(struct vnode *vp, struct vnode_xxx *data, struct thread *td) { set the all attr to vp from data; ...; } Above funtions can set/get vnode information(now those are attr, extattr and ADVLOCK) together if its type is VREG. We cannot do implement it caused by lack of vfs arcana. Please raise your hands and do it, please. 5 References http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/ http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/index-ja.html http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/reason-for-sys-uio-file.html ---- We need your help. Please help us. -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 15:26:14 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2F016A49E for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:26:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (relay0.rambler.ru [81.19.66.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7066643DA7 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:24:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927055DE1; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:24:31 +0400 (MSD) Received: from edoofus.park.rambler.ru (unknown [81.19.65.108]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0DF5D9A; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:24:31 +0400 (MSD) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.park.rambler.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) id k9AFOXfb035954; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:24:33 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ru) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:24:33 +0400 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Alex Unleashed Message-ID: <20061010152433.GA35377@rambler-co.ru> References: <5e4707340610100624j38ce9f8du7741bd027eb8cb1b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e4707340610100624j38ce9f8du7741bd027eb8cb1b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: No virus found Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mkdir -m option POSIX compliance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:26:14 -0000 --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 03:24:14PM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > "mkdir -m mode -p /some/directory" calls chmod() on /some/directory even = if > it already exists, effectively changing the mode. POSIX specifies that th= is > mode may only be applied to newly created directories. Patch attached. > Please look at the URLs referenced in the patch for further information. >=20 I've modified your patch slightly, to save a variable. How does this look to you? %%% Index: mkdir.c =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c,v retrieving revision 1.32 diff -u -p -r1.32 mkdir.c --- mkdir.c 9 Feb 2005 17:37:38 -0000 1.32 +++ mkdir.c 10 Oct 2006 15:22:05 -0000 @@ -99,19 +99,19 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) } =20 for (exitval =3D 0; *argv !=3D NULL; ++argv) { - success =3D 1; if (pflag) { - if (build(*argv, omode)) - success =3D 0; + success =3D build(*argv, omode); } else if (mkdir(*argv, omode) < 0) { if (errno =3D=3D ENOTDIR || errno =3D=3D ENOENT) warn("%s", dirname(*argv)); else warn("%s", *argv); success =3D 0; - } else if (vflag) - (void)printf("%s\n", *argv); - =09 + } else { + success =3D 1; + if (vflag) + (void)printf("%s\n", *argv); + } if (!success) exitval =3D 1; /* @@ -119,9 +119,10 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) * nine bits, so if you try to set a mode including the * sticky, setuid, setgid bits you lose them. Don't do * this unless the user has specifically requested a mode, - * as chmod will (obviously) ignore the umask. + * as chmod will (obviously) ignore the umask. Do this + * on newly created directories only. */ - if (success && mode !=3D NULL && chmod(*argv, omode) =3D=3D -1) { + if (success =3D=3D 1 && mode !=3D NULL && chmod(*argv, omode) =3D=3D -1)= { warn("%s", *argv); exitval =3D 1; } @@ -129,6 +130,11 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[]) exit(exitval); } =20 + +/* + * Returns 1 if a directory has been created, + * 2 if it already existed, and 0 on failure. + */ int build(char *path, mode_t omode) { @@ -139,7 +145,7 @@ build(char *path, mode_t omode) =20 p =3D path; oumask =3D 0; - retval =3D 0; + retval =3D 1; if (p[0] =3D=3D '/') /* Skip leading '/'. */ ++p; for (first =3D 1, last =3D 0; !last ; ++p) { @@ -174,7 +180,7 @@ build(char *path, mode_t omode) if (errno =3D=3D EEXIST || errno =3D=3D EISDIR) { if (stat(path, &sb) < 0) { warn("%s", path); - retval =3D 1; + retval =3D 0; break; } else if (!S_ISDIR(sb.st_mode)) { if (last) @@ -182,12 +188,14 @@ build(char *path, mode_t omode) else errno =3D ENOTDIR; warn("%s", path); - retval =3D 1; + retval =3D 0; break; } + if (last) + retval =3D 2; } else { warn("%s", path); - retval =3D 1; + retval =3D 0; break; } } else if (vflag) %%% Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFK7sxqRfpzJluFF4RAjBRAJ4vjE51N5GklJjcAu+yU1hXhwjvsgCgkBgQ FKCY6JqSBsdZ7SznScOAlGY= =QIFY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DocE+STaALJfprDB-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 18:09:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D258C16A403; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:09:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7786943D79; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:09:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E160A46B08; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:09:36 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Daichi GOTO In-Reply-To: <452BA8C4.7040906@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20061010190815.L92182@fledge.watson.org> References: <452BA8C4.7040906@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, ozawa@ongs.co.jp, rodrigc@crodrigues.org Subject: Re: [REQUEST] unionfs needs some guys can do implements new 2 APIs for VFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:09:36 -0000 On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Daichi GOTO wrote: > 1 Introduction > > We have always tried to keep changes just in unionfs segment > only. But by accomplish nothing, we need change the other segment. > > > 2 Problem Description > > Until now we have did many improvements for unionfs, but > now we feel the limication arount the process of unionfs's > "copied-up file". Additional thinking of future support for > MAC extention, ADVLOCK lock infomation and somethinkg like those, > all the more reason to be careful. > > 3 Impact > > It leads the confution of unionfs implementation and some > problem around lock mechanism. We cannot solve those problem > by just only changes in unionfs segument. So, just to be clear that I understand things: the basic problem here is that when unionfs copies a file up a layer in the stack due to local modifications in the upper layer, you are not able to properly preserve the full set of file attributes, so are looking for a way to do this? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 7 16:38:12 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6516016A4C9 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 16:38:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rosmir@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA0A43DFE for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 16:37:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rosmir@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i27so1105330wxd for ; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=n8MZsAmRlT+l96VXk80NsZ+gbDDo+Yyb0vmnj0h/9Yz9kJt49OMAegBfwwOS5DyGE+x+Cv0GpM+ED11rVCPzhZTCLFqFmzToqDaFd76gqKY8Cd3kWsBSGUbiAwZ0nIv3RcBMMuMxOWfw7ifktnIR2xrcujOTwrax9EVZMFOHTK8= Received: by 10.90.73.3 with SMTP id v3mr2132487aga; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.27.4 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 09:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9c6e52b10610070937m17aae9d0p32775428668eeb11@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:37:52 +0400 From: "Stepan A. Baranov" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:47:16 +0000 Subject: SLIST_FOREACH_PREVPTR X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:38:12 -0000 Hello, What about the usage of SLIST_FOREACH_PREVPTR defined in queue.h? Is it deprecated? --- Rosmir -Stepan A. Baranov From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 7 18:54:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B1416A4D8 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com) Received: from web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3CEB43DD6 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:53:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 38390 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Oct 2006 18:53:33 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mOLtP7XnQ5EypR/TNyaYJQADGazbWJajln9VNuY9dA32AD/HLseN8oUGk51yd70nXevuknUZpJp9RLzYrD9tbi9JHSJAu9dOGndyS5eu2KkVx8FVBDM/tSxvD+ma/bxzNcIhC8qrQwsE5RMCAUGA70lwxiXdQriqnJBydSTTtt0= ; Message-ID: <20061007185333.38388.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.118.70.200] by web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:53:33 CEST Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:53:33 +0200 (CEST) From: To: Hans Petter Selasky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:47:35 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Keyboard system and Giant X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:54:00 -0000 Hello; FWIW, anyone planning to work in the keyboard or mouse systems is warned to look at the KII portions of KGI4BSD first. The main reference is the P4 repository but there is some documentation here: http://wikitest.freebsd.org/KGI Nicholas has been able to run FreeBSD's console multihead using KGI. We are currently out of developer time, but the idea will be to merge KII somewhen in the future so we can focus on further developments and improvements on the graphic part while we start enjoying some of the benefits of the better abstraction. cheers, Pedro. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi http://mail.yahoo.it From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 07:48:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166EB16A4D2; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 07:48:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dds@aueb.gr) Received: from mx-out-04.forthnet.gr (mx-out.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D2743D77; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 07:47:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dds@aueb.gr) Received: from mx-av-03.forthnet.gr (mx-av.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.27]) by mx-out-04.forthnet.gr (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k997lbrM018876; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:47:37 +0300 Received: from mx-in-02.forthnet.gr (mx-in-02.forthnet.gr [193.92.150.185]) by mx-av-03.forthnet.gr (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k997lZtP008622; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:47:35 +0300 Received: from [192.168.136.16] (ppp162-101.adsl.forthnet.gr [194.219.45.101]) by mx-in-02.forthnet.gr (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k997lR49014708; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:47:28 +0300 Authentication-Results: mx-in-02.forthnet.gr from=dds@aueb.gr; sender-id=neutral; spf=neutral Message-ID: <4529FE93.3050007@aueb.gr> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:47:31 +0300 From: Diomidis Spinellis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060729 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LI Xin References: <4529BF26.1040108@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <4529BF26.1040108@delphij.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:51:01 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Call for testers: Replace GNU gzip with NetBSD's gzip implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:48:23 -0000 LI Xin wrote: > Here is a patchset that replaces the GNU gzip with NetBSD's gzip > implementation, which uses zlib to do actual compress/decompress operation: > > Go to your src/usr.bin and execute the following shar archive: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/bsd_gzip/shar-bsd-gzip-20061009 > > Then, go to src/ and apply the following patch: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~delphij/for_review/bsd_gzip/patch-remove-gnu-gzip-01 > > Currently this gzip implementation should work as a drop-in replacement > for GNU gzip. I am still working on some style issues here, etc., so > the current focus is functional test. > > Any sort of comments are welcome. The file zuncompress.c is very closely related to usr.bin/compress/zopen.c. Both are derived from work I did in 1992 to package the compress(1) functionality into a library. Maybe the time is now ripe to actually move the compression/decompression code into a reusable library component. Diomidis - dds@ From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 9 19:54:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A9516A403; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:54:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan@buzzard.me.uk) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C06F43D49; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:54:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jonathan@buzzard.me.uk) Received: from [81.174.149.38] (helo=small.buzzard.me.uk) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1GX1Bv-0000Ny-Tc; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:53:37 +0100 Received: from grumpy.buzzard.me.uk ([192.168.42.3]) by small.buzzard.me.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GX1Br-0003Gv-RF; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: <452AA8BA.4050808@buzzard.me.uk> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:53:30 +0100 From: Jonathan Buzzard User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20060830) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruno Ducrot References: <4528EF25.1000103@buzzard.me.uk> <45298188.1080201@damogran.de> <20061008.170130.-2009526630.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: <20061009090344.GN4945@poupinou.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:54:58 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, lboehne@damogran.de, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOT A [GPL License violation] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:54:10 -0000 Bruno Ducrot wrote: [SNIP] > > I'm working on Dell's laptop support, even though I'm not > the one who code a tool for a fan control (and I don't > know if such tool under FreeBSD exist). > > Some preminaly code can be found here: > > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/i8kutils_bsd.tar.bz [1] > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/acpi_dell.tar.gz [2] > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/dellctl.tar.gz [3] > > For now, the 3 tar ball above have not been publically send to any > public list I'm aware of, because those are only priminally work. > > For [1], people can check I haven't removed any copyright, nor I even > bothered adding my name. In any case, I don't plan to add that one to > the base system. > In fact, I think to remove it from http://people.FreeBSD.org/~bruno/ > in the near future. > > For [2], people can check it's a really preliminary work, and is based > on some calls to ACPI methods under the DSDT. Since it's a really > different approach taken from the driver found under Linux, it's free > from any GPL'ed code. > > Finally [3] is only a userspace tool to control [2]. > > Since [2] and [3] are free from any GPL'ed codes, I consider commiting > them if one day they work. > > Actually I even considered to port [2] under Linux, because this is > the right way to go when ACPI mode is enabled for obvious reason. > The io ports related to the SMM handler are shared, and ACPI take > care to handle an ACPI mutex before entering SMM, that at least might > eliminate strange cases when sometimes i8k doesn't work. There is already a Toshiba ACPI module that does that I believe. Or at least it exposes a /dev/toshiba that enables you to but the laptop into SMM in the same was as the Toshiba/Dell drivers do. I still use a 2.4 kernel and hence APM as I have never gotten around to upgrading to 2.6, as this is complicated by running an entirely LVM system. You are however correct that ACPI is the correct way to go. JAB. -- Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 17:28:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3B916A40F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:28:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E5A43D60 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:28:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (zuvqlw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9AHRrfM039775 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:27:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9AHRrYo039774; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:27:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:27:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:27:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:56:13 +0000 Cc: Subject: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:28:02 -0000 Hi, While doing some performance tuning of a backup script I noticed that the -z option of our (bsd)tar behaves in a very suboptimal way. It's not only a lot slower than using gzip separately, it also compresses worse. I compared the following two commands (cwd=/): A. tar -cz --one-file-system -f- . | wc -c B. tar -c --one-file-system -f- . | gzip | wc -c In order to measure the time of the whole command pipes, I encapsulated them into subshell calls like this: /usr/bin/time sh -c 'tar ... | wc -c' These are results for multiple invocations of A (tar -cz): 7.30 real 7.15 user 0.09 sys 7.28 real 7.13 user 0.12 sys 7.29 real 7.14 user 0.09 sys And these are the numbers for B (tar -c | gzip): 5.54 real 5.37 user 0.15 sys 5.54 real 5.34 user 0.18 sys 5.55 real 5.40 user 0.12 sys My first thought was that "tar -z" would use a better compression level (e.g. -9) vs. the gzip default of -6, which would explain why it is slower. Therefore I expected the resulting backup to be smaller -- but just the opposite is the case. Command A resulted in a compressed size of 25364480 bytes, while B was a bit smaller (25306059 bytes). I'm surprised because I expected "tar -z" to be faster than a separate gzip process (at the same compression level), or at least as fast. But it's 30% slower. Is that a known problem? Is someone working on it? (BTW, I'm using 6.2-PRERELEASE about 1 week old.) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Emacs ist für mich kein Editor. Für mich ist das genau das gleiche, als wenn ich nach einem Fahrrad (für die Sonntagbrötchen) frage und einen pangalaktischen Raumkreuzer mit 10 km Gesamtlänge bekomme. Ich weiß nicht, was ich damit soll." -- Frank Klemm, de.comp.os.unix.discussion From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 19:59:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF6616A417 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:59:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org) Received: from mired.org (vpn.mired.org [66.92.153.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09DC043D5F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:59:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org) Received: (qmail 17941 invoked by uid 1001); 10 Oct 2006 19:59:47 -0000 Received: by bhuda.mired.org (tmda-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:59:47 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:59:46 -0400 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid X-Primary-Address: mwm@mired.org X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`; h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: Mike Meyer X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.0.3 (Seattle Slew) Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:59:59 -0000 In <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de>, Oliver Fromme typed: > Is that a known problem? Is someone working on it? Not necessarily a known problem, but not a surprise. I'm not sure about the size issue - it's not clear what compression level it's running at. The real time difference is expected. tar uses libarchive, which does the compression in the process. So while piping tar's output to gzip will let gzip compress data while tar is waiting on disk I/O, having tar compress things for you means that doesn't happen. Fixing that is a non-trivial task. Since they use different code - with different licenses - some difference is expected. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 20:19:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDE416A562 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:19:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (relay0.rambler.ru [81.19.66.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8DB43D49 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:19:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A855CF5; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:18:59 +0400 (MSD) Received: from edoofus.park.rambler.ru (unknown [81.19.65.108]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285355CEB; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:18:59 +0400 (MSD) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.park.rambler.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) id k9AKJ0TL078911; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:19:00 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ru) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:19:00 +0400 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Alex Unleashed Message-ID: <20061010201900.GA67123@rambler-co.ru> References: <5e4707340610100624j38ce9f8du7741bd027eb8cb1b@mail.gmail.com> <20061010152433.GA35377@rambler-co.ru> <5e4707340610101100g5dea53e0tc53eaef080c40c87@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e4707340610101100g5dea53e0tc53eaef080c40c87@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: No virus found Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mkdir -m option POSIX compliance X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:19:02 -0000 --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: > On 10/10/06, Ruslan Ermilov <[1]ru@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 03:24:14PM +0200, Alex Unleashed wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > "mkdir -m mode -p /some/directory" calls chmod() on /some/directory > even if > > it already exists, effectively changing the mode. POSIX specifies = that > this > > mode may only be applied to newly created directories. Patch attac= hed. > > Please look at the URLs referenced in the patch for further > information. > > > I've modified your patch slightly, to save a variable. > How does this look to you? >=20 > Looks good to me. >=20 OK, committed. --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFLAA0qRfpzJluFF4RAmT8AKCVBFWoctNBYrFBDVdco/p+FRO1+wCgnXP4 HnPE7y3iXaIPlMNHD8C5Uv0= =K3lq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 10 20:53:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2396016A403 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:53:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (mailrelay1.uni-rostock.de [139.30.8.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469A443D49 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:53:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de ([127.0.0.1]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:35 +0200 Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (unverified) by antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.20) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:35 +0200 Received: from mail pickup service by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:35 +0200 X-SCL: 1 47.51% Received: from mail.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.8.11]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:25 +0200 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail2.uni-rostock.de by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) id <0J6X00901TEOON@mail.uni-rostock.de> (original mail from joerg@britannica.bec.de) for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:24 +0200 (MEST) Received: from britannica.bec.de (storm.stura.uni-rostock.de [139.30.252.72]) by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J6X00DS5U0ODZ@mail.uni-rostock.de> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:53:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6730156F7; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:52:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:52:24 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger In-reply-to: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mail-followup-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <20061010205224.GB19608@britannica.bec.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) References: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2006 20:53:25.0097 (UTC) FILETIME=[2121DD90:01C6ECAE] Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:53:38 -0000 On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:27:53PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > While doing some performance tuning of a backup script > I noticed that the -z option of our (bsd)tar behaves in > a very suboptimal way. It's not only a lot slower than > using gzip separately, it also compresses worse. [snip] I can't replicate this on DragonFly with our version of bsdtar and the gzip-on-top-libz. At least the later is measurable faster and gives better compression than GNU gzip. build# time bsdtar -czf test.tgz contrib/gcc-3.4 2.898u 0.067s 0:03.12 94.5% 204+92k 0+58io 0pf+0w build# time sh -c "bsdtar -cf - contrib/gcc-3.4 | gzip > test2.tgz" 2.928u 0.099s 0:03.57 84.3% 75+80k 0+58io 0pf+0w build# ls -l test*.tgz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 7430189 Oct 10 22:48 test.tgz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 7430189 Oct 10 22:48 test2.tgz Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 10:48:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C6616A582 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:48:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mafiageek@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423A943D5D for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:48:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mafiageek@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so663754nfc for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:47:55 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=tZC14r0YH67INVjF4XRkvMNl3C1tHw1WN61lg/94Hy4jw4miJncadw0ItMXqd5y0ATNwicBUVkoPKlAYzn5P1Mn7KyJ6KZMhl64eqf7BJSQzZvG69yhTs81BSJ8b4BsRxbjibL7Fiqxr/2EPQG6Vis2fMNNmJqrgA1uChj2aTmw= Received: by 10.78.94.37 with SMTP id r37mr587202hub; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.108? ( [203.97.120.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 8sm74751hug.2006.10.11.03.47.54; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <452CCBD6.6020900@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:47:50 +1300 From: Dale DuRose User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061010205224.GB19608@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20061010205224.GB19608@britannica.bec.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:48:16 -0000 Hi I've tested on 6.1-RELEASE-p5 box these are my results. I'm wondering why the dragonfly results are so different. What have you guys done? Cheers Dale Run 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- %time sh -c "bsdtar -czf test.tgz /usr/src/contrib/gcc" 12.707u 0.547s 0:13.48 98.2% 58+607k 6+86io 0pf+0w %time sh -c "bsdtar -cf - /usr/src/contrib/gcc | gzip > test2.tgz" 11.043u 0.901s 0:12.07 98.9% 58+588k 0+86io 0pf+0w %time bsdtar -czf test3.tgz /usr/src/contrib/gcc 12.832u 0.525s 0:13.50 98.8% 58+607k 0+86io 0pf+0w Run 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- %time sh -c "bsdtar -czf test.tgz /usr/src/contrib/gcc" 12.810u 0.435s 0:13.39 98.8% 58+608k 0+86io 0pf+0w %time sh -c "bsdtar -cf - /usr/src/contrib/gcc | gzip > test2.tgz" 11.033u 0.884s 0:12.05 98.8% 58+590k 0+86io 0pf+0w %time bsdtar -czf test3.tgz /usr/src/contrib/gcc 12.684u 0.397s 0:13.33 98.0% 58+608k 0+86io 0pf+0w Run 2 File Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -rw-r--r-- 1 coder coder 11275589 Oct 11 23:39 test.tgz -rw-r--r-- 1 coder coder 11273163 Oct 11 23:40 test2.tgz -rw-r--r-- 1 coder coder 11275589 Oct 11 23:41 test3.tgz From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 11:15:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FA216A4F3; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from jengal.datamax.bg (jengal.datamax.bg [82.103.104.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA7243D5A; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from qlovarnika.bg.datamax (qlovarnika.bg.datamax [192.168.10.2]) by jengal.datamax.bg (Postfix) with SMTP id 25CC8B844; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:15:09 +0300 (EEST) Received: (nullmailer pid 54744 invoked by uid 1002); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:09 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:15:09 +0300 From: Vasil Dimov To: Oliver Fromme Message-ID: <20061011111509.GC54180@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vd@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:10 -0000 --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:27:53PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Hi, >=20 > While doing some performance tuning of a backup script > I noticed that the -z option of our (bsd)tar behaves in > a very suboptimal way. It's not only a lot slower than > using gzip separately, it also compresses worse. >=20 > I compared the following two commands (cwd=3D/): >=20 > A. tar -cz --one-file-system -f- . | wc -c > B. tar -c --one-file-system -f- . | gzip | wc -c >=20 > In order to measure the time of the whole command pipes, > I encapsulated them into subshell calls like this: > /usr/bin/time sh -c 'tar ... | wc -c' >=20 > These are results for multiple invocations of A (tar -cz): >=20 > 7.30 real 7.15 user 0.09 sys > 7.28 real 7.13 user 0.12 sys > 7.29 real 7.14 user 0.09 sys >=20 > And these are the numbers for B (tar -c | gzip): >=20 > 5.54 real 5.37 user 0.15 sys > 5.54 real 5.34 user 0.18 sys > 5.55 real 5.40 user 0.12 sys >=20 > My first thought was that "tar -z" would use a better > compression level (e.g. -9) vs. the gzip default of -6, > which would explain why it is slower. Therefore I > expected the resulting backup to be smaller -- but just > the opposite is the case. Command A resulted in a > compressed size of 25364480 bytes, while B was a bit > smaller (25306059 bytes). >=20 > I'm surprised because I expected "tar -z" to be faster > than a separate gzip process (at the same compression > level), or at least as fast. But it's 30% slower. >=20 > Is that a known problem? Is someone working on it? >=20 You (wrongly) assumed that two processed will do slower than a single one. It's exactly the opposite. While the one is constantly reading disk contents the other is constantly compressing. With one process you have to read data, compress, read data, compress and so on which is suboptimal (see Mike's reply too). It is not a problem in any program nor a feature in another. It's just how the things work. --=20 Vasil Dimov gro.DSBeerF@dv % Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. -- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time) --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFFLNI9Fw6SP/bBpCARAmRJAJ44tPuIXJvRKoRlrm1hNpT7QhSH/gCgxhc9 +QT3Q3q4gFwnK5xvf+nvyiY= =ERvg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MnLPg7ZWsaic7Fhd-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 09:34:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8BD16A40F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:34:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0E143D76 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:34:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (czgzuv@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9B9YAN0081295 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:34:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9B9YASW081294; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:34:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:34:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:34:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:20:42 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:34:18 -0000 Mike Meyer wrote: > Not necessarily a known problem, but not a surprise. I'm not sure > about the size issue - it's not clear what compression level it's > running at. The real time difference is expected. tar uses libarchive, > which does the compression in the process. So while piping tar's > output to gzip will let gzip compress data while tar is waiting on > disk I/O, having tar compress things for you means that doesn't > happen. There was no disk I/O involved in my tests. All data was cached in RAM. You can also see from the my numbers that the "user time" was almost the same as the "real time". > Since they use different code - with different licenses - some > difference is expected. Different code? tar/libarchive uses libz, and I thought that gzip also uses libz, but I could be wrong. If gzip uses its own code instead of libz, that would explain the results of my test, of course. So it seems that gzip is 30% faster than libz ... quite significant, I think. It seems I won't use tar's z option anymore. :-) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing' just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard." -- Peter van der Linden From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 13:33:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0783E16A415 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:33:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (mailrelay1.uni-rostock.de [139.30.8.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5037B43D55 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:33:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de ([127.0.0.1]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:33:52 +0200 Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (unverified) by antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.20) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:33:52 +0200 Received: from mail.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.8.11]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:33:52 +0200 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail2.uni-rostock.de by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) id <0J6Z000013R6BZ@mail.uni-rostock.de> (original mail from joerg@britannica.bec.de) for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:33:51 +0200 (MEST) Received: from britannica.bec.de (storm.stura.uni-rostock.de [139.30.252.72]) by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J6Z00IZL4C0BH@mail.uni-rostock.de> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:33:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CCF975726; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:32:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:32:50 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger In-reply-to: <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mail-followup-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <20061011133250.GA483@britannica.bec.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) References: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2006 13:33:52.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[E445B450:01C6ED39] Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:33:58 -0000 On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > If gzip uses its own code instead of libz, that would > explain the results of my test, of course. So it seems > that gzip is 30% faster than libz ... quite significant, > I think. No, it isn't. I did benchmarks before importing the NetBSD version into DragonFly two years ago and gzip was *always* slower. zlib 1.2 added quite a number of performance improvements as well, so it shouldn't be the problem. I have no idea why it is that slow on FreeBSD -- I don't think the slightly older version we have in DragonFly 1.6 is the origin. The programs I run were from memory as well. Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 14:06:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D757216A403; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799B543D5F; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1GXeiv-0007hw-4u; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:06:17 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:06:17 +0200 From: Danny Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:06:19 -0000 the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) dual cpu. running iperf -c (receiving): freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em throughput gets worse - or iperf is. danny From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 12:38:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0E116A4E1; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:38:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875B043D86; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:37:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (hsrqxa@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9BCbFRk090705; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:37:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9BCbFJ6090704; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:37:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <200610111237.k9BCbFJ6090704@lurza.secnetix.de> To: vd@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:37:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20061011111509.GC54180@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:37:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:24:10 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:38:07 -0000 Vasil Dimov wrote: > You (wrongly) assumed that two processed will do slower than a single > one. That assumption should be true, in general, at least on a single-CPU machine. With two processes, there is additional overhead for data copying through the pipe. > It's exactly the opposite. While the one is constantly reading disk > contents the other is constantly compressing. With one process you have > to read data, compress, read data, compress and so on which is > suboptimal (see Mike's reply too). Mike's reply isn't applicable, because no blocking on I/O occurs. All data is in RAM. The amount of reads from disk (or rather from cache) and writes to disk (or rather to the wc command) is exactly the same in both cases. In fact, the case with separate gzip involves more I/O (namely the pipe, which more than doubles the I/O overhead). As it turned out meanwhile, the code in libarcive + libz seems to be less efficient than the code in gzip. It's a 30% difference. It has nothing to do with the number of processes (whether there's one or two). If tar used the gzip code, it would be just as fast. Best regards Oliver PS: Please respect Reply-to. I'm reading the list and don't need to receive another copy. -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. > Can the denizens of this group enlighten me about what the > advantages of Python are, versus Perl ? "python" is more likely to pass unharmed through your spelling checker than "perl". -- An unknown poster and Fredrik Lundh From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 17:18:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E76F16A403 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nsouch@free.fr) Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr (smtp6-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D326E43D66 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:11:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nsouch@free.fr) Received: from smtp (lns-bzn-32-82-254-9-65.adsl.proxad.net [82.254.9.65]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E982425FF for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:11:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18048 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Oct 2006 17:05:54 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:05:54 +0200 From: Nicolas Souchu To: Hans Petter Selasky , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061011170554.GA17513@breizh> References: <20061007185333.38388.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061007185333.38388.qmail@web32714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:33:22 +0000 Cc: pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Keyboard system and Giant X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:49 -0000 On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 08:53:33PM +0200, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com wrote: > Hello; > > FWIW, anyone planning to work in the keyboard or mouse systems is warned to > look at the KII portions of KGI4BSD first. The main reference is the P4 > repository but there is some documentation here: > http://wikitest.freebsd.org/KGI Well, the wiki pages have been written long ago. Everything "recent" is now on www.kgi-project.org > Nicholas has been able to run FreeBSD's console multihead using KGI. We are Proof of concept is only available on i386 architecture. > currently out of developer time, but the idea will be to merge KII somewhen in > the future so we can focus on further developments and improvements on the > graphic part while we start enjoying some of the benefits of the better > abstraction. Anyone interested in KGI/KII can ask for further details on the concepts. Look at http://kgi.sourceforge.net/download.html for even more details (code). Have fun. Nicholas From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 17:54:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA6916A47B for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:54:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB69D43D7F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:52:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z59so237689pyg for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r5xjSb0Dwls7lwlpJ5LjiXNaG/zMkyquutaSgIP5pzv6AUanz4pl8scymzj+l8BeBcrxxEMJUXgwaBLH1AsBbHJK4dXP1t7sjNGmZvTSjn+XQflzy0QOi35TyBHxqH1/lv9JYDJPkbTPXtZxKDcrA2OSTsloaTyhetKi91k6z30= Received: by 10.35.89.10 with SMTP id r10mr1254549pyl; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.119.1 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:33 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" To: "Danny Braniss" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:42 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:54:38 -0000 On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > dual cpu. > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec > > so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em > throughput gets worse - or iperf is. You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. I still do 930ish Mb/s on a P4 with a PCI-E or PCI-X adaptors running 6.1, in fact can do that with a 4 port adaptor I believe. Regards, Jack From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 18:13:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804E816A415 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:13:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.181]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD9043D7F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:13:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o67so285954pye for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:13:55 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r5xjSb0Dwls7lwlpJ5LjiXNaG/zMkyquutaSgIP5pzv6AUanz4pl8scymzj+l8BeBcrxxEMJUXgwaBLH1AsBbHJK4dXP1t7sjNGmZvTSjn+XQflzy0QOi35TyBHxqH1/lv9JYDJPkbTPXtZxKDcrA2OSTsloaTyhetKi91k6z30= Received: by 10.35.89.10 with SMTP id r10mr1254549pyl; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.119.1 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:33 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" To: "Danny Braniss" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:15:21 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:13:57 -0000 On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > dual cpu. > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec > > so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em > throughput gets worse - or iperf is. You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. I still do 930ish Mb/s on a P4 with a PCI-E or PCI-X adaptors running 6.1, in fact can do that with a 4 port adaptor I believe. Regards, Jack From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 03:56:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56F016A412 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:56:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd2mo3so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE17643D49 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:56:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from soralx@cydem.org) Received: from pd4mr7so.prod.shaw.ca (pd4mr7so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.84]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J700023H8A2SDA0@l-daemon> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:56:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml9so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.7]) by pd4mr7so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J700073A8A2E181@pd4mr7so.prod.shaw.ca> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:56:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from soralx.cydem.org ([24.87.27.3]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J7000ISV8A2D680@l-daemon> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:56:26 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:56:24 -0700 From: soralx@cydem.org In-reply-to: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <200610112056.24546.soralx@cydem.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:56:34 -0000 > On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: > > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > > dual cpu. > > > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > > freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > > > btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec > > > > so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em > > throughput gets worse - or iperf is. > > You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on > your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. still, 63% drop in performance doesn't cause much joy, does it? [SorAlx] ridin' VN1500-B2 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 07:26:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E5F16A403 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:26:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFB743D5E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:26:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.221] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k9C7Q124003430 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:26:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <452DEE0A.4060500@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:26:02 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200610101727.k9AHRrYo039774@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:26:03 -0000 Oliver Fromme wrote: > > While doing some performance tuning of a backup script > I noticed that the -z option of our (bsd)tar behaves in > a very suboptimal way. It's not only a lot slower than > using gzip separately, it also compresses worse. It seems that you and others have seen very different performance. I'd be very interested in knowing why. I suspect it may have to do with average file size. How big are the files you're archiving? Does the relative performance differ with larger or smaller files? Right now, libarchive calls the libz compression function for each small piece of data. I think that it might be possible to make it faster by combining blocks of data to make fewer calls to the compression routines in libz. (This is why I think the size of the files might matter; small files result in more calls to libz with small blocks of data.) I am very surprised that you see different sizes of output. There are small differences between the compression code in libz and gzip, but I've only ever seen very trivial size differences because of that. Tim Kientzle From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 08:59:12 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B472E16A403; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:59:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CCD43D62; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:59:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1GXwPG-000Op9-VV; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:59:10 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: "Jack Vogel" In-reply-to: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Jack Vogel" message dated "Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:51:33 -0700." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:59:10 +0200 From: Danny Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:59:12 -0000 > On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: > > the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > > dual cpu. > > > > running iperf -c (receiving): > > > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > > freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > > > btw, iperf -s (xmitting) is slightly better > > freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 664 MBytes 558 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 390 MBytes 327 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 495 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec > > freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 487 MBytes 408 Mbits/sec > > > > so, it seems that as the release number increases, the em > > throughput gets worse - or iperf is. > > You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on > your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. > I agree 100% with your first statement, but, if_em is useless without the rest, and if it's not delivering, then something is wrong somewhere, no necesarely with the em driver, but in how the system interacts. > I still do 930ish Mb/s on a P4 with a PCI-E or PCI-X adaptors > running 6.1, in fact can do that with a 4 port adaptor I believe. i do get on certain combinations nice numbers: Server listening on TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 928 Mbits/sec (the mb is Intel SWV). which seems almost optimal, but on other platforms i get [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 654 MBytes 548 Mbits/sec (the mb is Intel SE7501) cheers, danny From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 10:20:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059EB16A403 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:20:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2F843D4C for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:20:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v9.0.1) with ESMTP id md50003082910.msg for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:20:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01a301c6ede8$061e9160$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Joerg Sonnenberger" , References: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061011133250.GA483@britannica.bec.de> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:20:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:20:25 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:20:26 +0100 Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:20:42 -0000 Just a silly one but are you guys using the same version of gzip, would be worth just checking? Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:34:10AM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> If gzip uses its own code instead of libz, that would >> explain the results of my test, of course. So it seems >> that gzip is 30% faster than libz ... quite significant, >> I think. > > No, it isn't. I did benchmarks before importing the NetBSD version > into DragonFly two years ago and gzip was *always* slower. zlib 1.2 > added quite a number of performance improvements as well, so it > shouldn't be the problem. > > I have no idea why it is that slow on FreeBSD -- I don't think the > slightly older version we have in DragonFly 1.6 is the origin. > > The programs I run were from memory as well. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 10:30:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDE816A40F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:30:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BC143D60; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:30:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v9.0.1) with ESMTP id md50003082934.msg; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:30:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01ad01c6ede9$5e4ee730$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Jack Vogel" , "Danny Braniss" References: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:29:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:30:03 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:30:04 +0100 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:30:24 -0000 Jack Vogel wrote: > On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: >> the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) >> dual cpu. >> running iperf -c (receiving): >> >> freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec >> freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec >> freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec >> freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on > your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. > > I still do 930ish Mb/s on a P4 with a PCI-E or PCI-X adaptors > running 6.1, in fact can do that with a 4 port adaptor I believe. Old hardware or not I'd say they are interesting results as there should be no real reason why we need the most up to date hardware not to loose out on performance. Out of interest Danny how do the various OS compare when using a single CPU kernel? Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 10:49:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7DE16A407; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:49:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958DB43D4C; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:48:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1GXy7Q-00021o-Gn; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:48:52 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: "Steven Hartland" In-reply-to: <01ad01c6ede9$5e4ee730$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> References: <2a41acea0610111051r36ad7200gef868593e34c9331@mail.gmail.com> <01ad01c6ede9$5e4ee730$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Comments: In-reply-to "Steven Hartland" message dated "Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:29:52 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:48:52 +0200 From: Danny Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em blues X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:49:04 -0000 > Jack Vogel wrote: > > On 10/11/06, Danny Braniss wrote: > >> the box is a bit old (Intel Pentium III (933.07-MHz 686-class CPU) > >> dual cpu. > >> running iperf -c (receiving): > >> > >> freebsd-4.10 0.0-10.0 sec 936 MBytes 785 Mbits/sec > >> freebsd-5.4 0.0-10.0 sec 413 MBytes 346 Mbits/sec > >> freebsd.6.1 0.0-10.0 sec 366 MBytes 307 Mbits/sec > >> freebsd-6.2 0.0-10.0 sec 344 MBytes 289 Mbits/sec > > You arent measuring em, you're measuring RELEASES on > > your hardware, is this a surprise on a P3, no. > > > > I still do 930ish Mb/s on a P4 with a PCI-E or PCI-X adaptors > > running 6.1, in fact can do that with a 4 port adaptor I believe. > > Old hardware or not I'd say they are interesting results as > there should be no real reason why we need the most up to > date hardware not to loose out on performance. > and eol threats :-) > Out of interest Danny how do the various OS compare when > using a single CPU kernel? i don't have any UP kernels, but i'll make one for 6.2 an let you know. danny From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 12:50:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D524616A40F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:50:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (mailrelay1.uni-rostock.de [139.30.8.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F72C43D6E for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:50:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de ([127.0.0.1]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:50:34 +0200 Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (unverified) by antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.20) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:50:34 +0200 Received: from mail.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.8.11]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:50:34 +0200 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail2.uni-rostock.de by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) id <0J7000201WVOCD@mail.uni-rostock.de> (original mail from joerg@britannica.bec.de) for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:50:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: from britannica.bec.de (wlan034119.uni-rostock.de [139.30.34.119]) by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J70007G9X0ARO@mail.uni-rostock.de> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:50:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 77C8856A4; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:49:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:49:47 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger In-reply-to: <01a301c6ede8$061e9160$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mail-followup-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <20061012124947.GE2487@britannica.bec.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) References: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061011133250.GA483@britannica.bec.de> <01a301c6ede8$061e9160$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2006 12:50:34.0694 (UTC) FILETIME=[0240AE60:01C6EDFD] Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:50:54 -0000 On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > Just a silly one but are you guys using the same > version of gzip, would be worth just checking? Grmbl. Can't reproduce my original tests now. I'm not sure what changed in the mean time. Doing some performing testing with libz alone would be worth it. Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 15:24:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E1216A417; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:24:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DB243D5F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:24:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (uhupcr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9CFOOTM069192; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:24:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9CFOOmS069191; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:24:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:24:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610121524.k9CFOOmS069191@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <452DEE0A.4060500@freebsd.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:24:29 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:24:13 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:24:37 -0000 Tim Kientzle wrote: > It seems that you and others have seen very different > performance. I'd be very interested in knowing why. > I suspect it may have to do with average file size. > How big are the files you're archiving? The numbers that I gave were from archiving a standard root file system of FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE, i.e. some binaries and libs (/bin, /sbin, /lib, /boot/kernel) and a bunch of small files from /etc. Not much else. The gzip that I used for comparison is the stock gzip that comes with 6.2-PRERELEASE, compiled with the default compiler settings. gzip -V says: gzip 1.2.4 (18 Aug 93) Compilation options: DIRENT UTIME STDC_HEADERS HAVE_UNISTD_H ASMV > Does the relative performance differ with larger or > smaller files? Good question. I performed further tests, first one with /usr/ports (which is mostly small files, but a hell of a lot of them): /usr/ports with "tar cz", resulting size is 35266560: 82.47 real 11.09 user 2.34 sys 81.76 real 11.14 user 2.24 sys 82.25 real 11.24 user 2.18 sys /usr/ports with "tar c | gzip", resulting size is 35279112: 77.61 real 8.58 user 2.39 sys 77.64 real 8.67 user 2.27 sys 77.47 real 8.57 user 2.40 sys In this case, the "real" time is much larger than the "user" time. I guess that's the overhead of 85677 files and 23399 directories (according to find(1)). :-) I performed a second test with a directory of documents (mostly PDF which aren't very well compressible, but also some PS and other formats; most of the files are multiple MBytes in size, total about 200 MB): Big PDF/PS documents with "tar cz", result is 125880320: 16.16 real 15.78 user 0.29 sys 16.38 real 15.83 user 0.25 sys 16.16 real 15.82 user 0.24 sys Big PDF/PS documents with "tar c | gzip", result is 125894830: 13.17 real 12.77 user 0.36 sys 13.18 real 12.79 user 0.34 sys 13.19 real 12.73 user 0.38 sys One thing that you can observe is the fact the the "sys" time is slightly larger in the gzip case. I assume that's because of the pipe overhead. Interestingly, in both tests the compressed size of the "gzip" case was slightly larger than the "tar cz" case. That's the opposite of what I got in my very first test (when archiving the root file system). I'm not concerned about the difference in compression sizes, because it's in the sub-percent range. But I'm more concerned about the CPU times ("user" times). It makes quite a clear difference in all of my tests. You should be basically able to reproduce my tests. There's absolutely nothing special about my environment. The test machine is an Athlon64 (but running 32bit FreeBSD/i386 6.2-PRERELEASE), single-core, no SMP. The test data is on two gmirror'ed SATA drives which are quite fast, but all of the data was cached in RAM during my tests. dmesg can be found here, if required: http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/dmesg/box/ Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Perl will consistently give you what you want, unless what you want is consistency." -- Larry Wall From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 18:56:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261A916A47C for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:56:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C60CE43D98 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:56:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 5361 invoked by uid 399); 12 Oct 2006 18:56:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?156.154.4.85?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Oct 2006 18:56:39 -0000 Message-ID: <452E8FDF.4050003@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:56:31 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG, olli@lurza.secnetix.de References: <200610121524.k9CFOOmS069191@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200610121524.k9CFOOmS069191@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:56:53 -0000 Oliver Fromme wrote: > In this case, the "real" time is much larger than the > "user" time. I guess that's the overhead of 85677 files > and 23399 directories (according to find(1)). :-) Did you perform your tests once only with each method, and one right after the other? If so, the effect you saw might be due to file system caching. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 20:54:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7A616A550; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com) Received: from mgw-ext12.nokia.com (mgw-ext12.nokia.com [131.228.20.171]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E09643D94; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com) Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id k9CKsowO005291; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:54:50 +0300 Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:54:50 +0300 Received: from bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.160.235]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:54:16 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:54:14 -0400 Message-ID: <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E03D@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <7579f7fb0610121333q30cff91dnff8a6684b9fa298d@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt Thread-Index: AcbuPkHJutpHbhxBTpeQmzk7AFhB4QAAMAZQ From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2006 20:54:16.0563 (UTC) FILETIME=[94A27430:01C6EE40] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:07:49 +0000 Cc: Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com Subject: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:54:56 -0000 Hi. I figured I'll give this mailing list a shot in helping me figure out a problem I have. I have 2 reference boards from LSI, using the mpt driver. Each one has MPI FW revision 1.5.13.0 They repond differently. The PCI-X version LSI1064 reports running in RAID-1 and do NOT get the error message. The PCI-express do get the error message, and thus reports RAID-0 Both are configured as RAID-1 Integrated mirroring. Using the same 2 disks on both, swapping them out back and forth between the testing. NOTE: the behavior is the same with FW version 1.5.12.0 except with 1.5.12.0 I get notify events on which I can report sync percentage. ---------------- ERROR MESSAGE ----------------------- . . mpt_read_cfg_page: Config Info Status 22 mpt_refresh_raid_vol: Failed to read RAID Vol Page(0) mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): Settings (netlog:mpt .. ) mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): 0 Members: mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): RAID-0 - Optimal . . ------------------------------------------------------ Johan . From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 23:17:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDCD16A407 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:17:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lydianconcepts@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A2B43D4C for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:17:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lydianconcepts@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so1311475nfc for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:17:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W99AyRp76MV7y5wKtLWndPPCoxpGfMSaInEngqByKW18zOTjHg/ipVbOIEFbeoRFqnKt67tfarO5lVNy8fkmIsiCrghjy8xrsvloQeo2AWyySurXhZh+VY2/yymdnSCDxb8SpglWsg/cFQzBS+UgULMsyB/sTT4Eal/VouqK2yY= Received: by 10.78.139.1 with SMTP id m1mr2864574hud; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.197.4 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7579f7fb0610121617n2b6b4cdap67eeb0c9b5a58da8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:17:28 -0700 From: "Matthew Jacob" To: "Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com" In-Reply-To: <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E03D@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7579f7fb0610121333q30cff91dnff8a6684b9fa298d@mail.gmail.com> <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E03D@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:24:07 +0000 Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:17:31 -0000 And the problem is....? On 10/12/06, Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com wrote: > Hi. > I figured I'll give this mailing list a shot in helping me figure out a > problem I have. > > I have 2 reference boards from LSI, using the mpt driver. > Each one has MPI FW revision 1.5.13.0 > They repond differently. > The PCI-X version LSI1064 reports running in RAID-1 and do NOT get the > error message. > The PCI-express do get the error message, and thus reports RAID-0 > Both are configured as RAID-1 Integrated mirroring. Using the same 2 > disks on both, swapping them out back and forth between the testing. > > NOTE: the behavior is the same with FW version 1.5.12.0 except with > 1.5.12.0 I get notify events on which I can report sync percentage. > > ---------------- ERROR MESSAGE ----------------------- > . > . > mpt_read_cfg_page: Config Info Status 22 > mpt_refresh_raid_vol: Failed to read RAID Vol Page(0) > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): Settings (netlog:mpt .. ) > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): 0 Members: > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): RAID-0 - Optimal > . > . > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Johan > > > . > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-scsi-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 00:55:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FB716A407; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:55:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from smtp.utwente.nl (smtp1.utsp.utwente.nl [130.89.2.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46D443D58; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:55:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from nox.student.utwente.nl (nox.student.utwente.nl [130.89.165.91]) by smtp.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k9D0t1ZS008252; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:55:01 +0200 From: Pieter de Goeje To: Oliver Fromme Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:55:01 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <200610121524.k9CFOOmS069191@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200610121524.k9CFOOmS069191@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610130255.01566.pieter@degoeje.nl> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: pieter@degoeje.nl X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, kientzle@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:55:07 -0000 On Thursday 12 October 2006 17:24, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Interestingly, in both tests the compressed size of the > "gzip" case was slightly larger than the "tar cz" case. > That's the opposite of what I got in my very first test > (when archiving the root file system). I also found that the difference in size is insignificant. > I'm not concerned about the difference in compression > sizes, because it's in the sub-percent range. But I'm > more concerned about the CPU times ("user" times). > It makes quite a clear difference in all of my tests. I can confirm, however in my opinion the difference isn't really significant. Maybe a different compiler or gcc with better optimization settings could produce executables that are equally fast. First test on an AMD Athlon64 with 1GB memory running -STABLE and ~3GB /usr/ports dir. Warmup caches with tar -cf /dev/null /usr/ports. tar -czf /dev/null /usr/ports 622.64 real 244.37 user 9.36 sys tar -cf - /usr/ports | gzip > /dev/null 565.15 real 195.65 user 12.38 sys The tar|gzip command uses 18% less CPU and is 10% faster. It is clear the HDD is the bottleneck. Second test on an AMD Sempron with 512MB memory and 240MB directory also running -STABLE. Warmup caches with tar -cf /dev/null /usr/ports/distfiles/gnome2 tar -czf - /usr/ports/distfiles/gnome2 > /dev/null 33.71 real 31.56 user 1.04 sys 32.98 real 31.00 user 0.96 sys tar -cf - /usr/ports/distfiles/gnome2 | gzip > /dev/null 29.09 real 26.65 user 1.52 sys 29.18 real 26.62 user 1.62 sys The tar|gzip command uses 15% less CPU and is 12% faster. Very little disk I/O occured during this test. -- Pieter From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 12 23:57:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9526516A40F; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:57:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com) Received: from mgw-ext13.nokia.com (mgw-ext13.nokia.com [131.228.20.172]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D305D43D4C; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:57:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com) Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.10) with ESMTP id k9CNv7Wp021126; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:57:07 +0300 Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:57:05 +0300 Received: from bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.160.235]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:57:03 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0400 Message-ID: <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E0B3@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <7579f7fb0610121617n2b6b4cdap67eeb0c9b5a58da8@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt Thread-Index: AcbuVKMS2IOE1JenRCCfFI+Hd0lTVAAA4Zpw From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2006 23:57:03.0657 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D883190:01C6EE5A] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:37:42 +0000 Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RE: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:57:10 -0000 The problems are: (1) It's not a RAID-0 Vol but a RAID-1 (The PCI-X card reports it correctly, but not the PCI-Express. This should not differ. (2) The RAID volume is very slow (both cards are slow with RAID volume - this is the problem I am trying to track down), approx 4.5 Mbyte/sec instead of 30 Mbyte/sec I get when no RAID volume is configured. With the RAID volume, even just 1 disk in the volume get slow performance. (3) With the PCI-X card the config page has info in it, so I can add code to print the resync complete percentage on intervals I choose. (4) I added some code to print out the volume config page 0 info on the PCI-Express card: The header looks ok, but not the config page in the same structure, it's all zeroes. ------------------------ Snippet start ---------------------- . . mpt: MPI Version=3D1.5.13.0 ROLE: MPT_ROLE_INITIATOR IOC now at RUNSTATE IOC Page 2 Header: ver 4, len 8c, num 2, type 1 Capabilities: ( RAID-0 RAID-1E RAID-1netlog:mpt .. ) 1 Active Volume (2 Max) 2 Hidden Drive Members (10 Max) . .=20 mpt: mpt_read_cfg_page: Config Info Status 22 mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): mpt_refresh_raid_vol: Failed to read RAID Vol Page(0) -------------------------------------------- Volume Config Page values -------------------------------------------- Header PageVersion 0x6 Header PageLength 0x12 Header PageNumber 0x0 Header PageType 0x8 VolumeID 0 VolumeBus 0 VolumeIOC 0 VolumeType 0 VolumeType Flags 0x0 VolumeType State 0x0 VolumeType Reserved 0x0 VolumeSettings settings 0x0 VolumeSettings HotSparePool 0x0 VolumeSettings Reserved 0x0 MaxLBA 0 Reserved1 0 StripeSize 0 Reserved2 0 Reserved3 0 NumPhysDisks 0 DataScrubRate 0 ResyncRate 0 InactiveStatus 0 -------------------------------------------- mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): Settings ( ) mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): 0 Members: mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): RAID-0 - Optimal . . . (mpt0:0:6): Physical (mpt0:0:6), Pass-thru (mpt0:1:0) (mpt0:0:6): Online (mpt0:0:4): Physical (mpt0:0:4), Pass-thru (mpt0:1:1) (mpt0:0:4): Online . . . (probe5:mpt0:0:5:0): Uninitialized Transport 8:1e? da0 at mpt0 bus 0 target 5 lun 0 da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-2 device=20 da0: 300.000MB/s transfers da0: 37193MB (76171264 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 4741C) . . ------------------------------- Snippet end --------------------------- Johan From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 07:41:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7079216A403 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:41:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from leia.fdn.fr (ns0.fdn.org [80.67.169.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC6643D5D for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:41:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (reverse-25.fdn.fr [80.67.176.25]) by leia.fdn.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3/FDN) with ESMTP id k9D7fhYN002381 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:41:44 +0200 Received: by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd, from userid 1000) id 513C23F17; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:41:37 +0200 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less. Subject: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:41:47 -0000 Hi all. I didn't really know where to post this question, so I try "hackers".... When rc starts, root filesystem is already mounted readonly, and fsck runs ok, then root is remounted read/write. Later, if root filesystem is remounted readonly, then fsck is called, it will says "NO WRITE ACCESS". If "later" is "in multi user mode with lots of running process", I guess it is a really bad idea to run fsck, but if "later" is "still very early during rc process", it should not generate more problems than the usual fsck. My exact situation is: - run a custom init * remounts root read/write * do some write operations on root filesystem * remount root read-only (mnt_flags = MNT_RDONLY|MNT_UPDATE, export.ex_flags = MNT_EXRDONLY in mount syscall). * execv real /sbin/init - init starts - rc starts - fsck says "NO WRITE ACCESS".... Is there a way to remount root read only in the exact same state as it is when init starts ? Thanks, Yvan. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 08:07:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE2216A521 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:07:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (mailrelay1.uni-rostock.de [139.30.8.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4C843D91 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:07:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de ([127.0.0.1]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:07:00 +0200 Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (unverified) by antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.20) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:06:59 +0200 Received: from mail pickup service by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:06:59 +0200 X-SCL: 1 52.28% Received: from mail.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.8.11]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:06:50 +0200 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail2.uni-rostock.de by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) id <0J7200501EAQZ2@mail.uni-rostock.de> (original mail from joerg@britannica.bec.de) for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:06:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: from britannica.bec.de (storm.stura.uni-rostock.de [139.30.252.72]) by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J720022JEG7FL@mail.uni-rostock.de> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:04:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C061C5738; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:04:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:04:07 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger In-reply-to: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mail-followup-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) References: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2006 08:06:50.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[893B5BD0:01C6EE9E] Subject: Re: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:07:16 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:41:37AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > > Later, if root filesystem is remounted readonly, then fsck is called, > it will says "NO WRITE ACCESS". mount -ur / or if your fstab is not matching the system configuration mount -ur /dev/$ROOT / Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 08:32:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF82216A415 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:32:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from leia.fdn.fr (ns0.fdn.org [80.67.169.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5919343D73 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:32:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanhu@zeninc.net) Received: from smtp.zeninc.net (reverse-25.fdn.fr [80.67.176.25]) by leia.fdn.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3/FDN) with ESMTP id k9D8VwJX015283 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:31:59 +0200 Received: by smtp.zeninc.net (smtpd, from userid 1000) id 25B0A3F17; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:31:53 +0200 From: VANHULLEBUS Yvan To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061013083152.GA5885@zen.inc> References: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> User-Agent: All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less. Subject: Re: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:32:04 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:04:07AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:41:37AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > > > > Later, if root filesystem is remounted readonly, then fsck is called, > > it will says "NO WRITE ACCESS". > > mount -ur / > > or if your fstab is not matching the system configuration > > mount -ur /dev/$ROOT / That's what I tried (using the mount command or the mount syscall). Fsck runs, but starts by "NO WRITE ACCESS", and I don't know what will happen if it detects and try to fix some problems on the filesystem. Yvan. -- NETASQ http://www.netasq.com From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 06:45:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB3716A407 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:45:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lydianconcepts@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56F143D55 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:45:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lydianconcepts@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n15so1419219nfc for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kofYjd2dRndEgJBG86fU51euZcO2CudVsfRS+YAzDNXOXJFn/N4lFn18910vVE8G08Zl7cCEjOtE1e3WOOYzZQa6BvxiGS7DkV2hbmopxYZEtOM14/OGyphXL4iVI0Y/UycdsjVh413rs9mkL21U2WLbzP2RhIeL3O0P9/dgHcI= Received: by 10.78.201.8 with SMTP id y8mr3346640huf; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.197.4 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7579f7fb0610122345h4b14717fp18e47a022c6a88b2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:45:45 -0700 From: "Matthew Jacob" To: "Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com" In-Reply-To: <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E0B3@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7579f7fb0610121617n2b6b4cdap67eeb0c9b5a58da8@mail.gmail.com> <6E2B2C4FBED4D84D80F52ECD1579D06801C3E0B3@bsebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:39:56 +0000 Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LSI1064 and LSI1064E and mpt X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:45:48 -0000 Sounds like f/w issues. Let me see if I can't get some traction out of LSI on this. On 10/12/06, Johannes.Kruger@nokia.com wrote: > The problems are: > (1) It's not a RAID-0 Vol but a RAID-1 (The PCI-X card reports it > correctly, but not the PCI-Express. This should not differ. > (2) The RAID volume is very slow (both cards are slow with RAID volume - > this is the problem I am trying to track down), approx 4.5 Mbyte/sec > instead of 30 Mbyte/sec I get when no RAID volume is configured. With > the RAID volume, even just 1 disk in the volume get slow performance. > (3) With the PCI-X card the config page has info in it, so I can add > code to print the resync complete percentage on intervals I choose. > (4) I added some code to print out the volume config page 0 info on the > PCI-Express card: > The header looks ok, but not the config page in the same structure, it's > all zeroes. > > ------------------------ Snippet start ---------------------- > . > . > mpt: MPI Version=1.5.13.0 > ROLE: MPT_ROLE_INITIATOR > IOC now at RUNSTATE > IOC Page 2 Header: ver 4, len 8c, num 2, type 1 > Capabilities: ( RAID-0 RAID-1E RAID-1netlog:mpt .. ) > 1 Active Volume (2 Max) > 2 Hidden Drive Members (10 Max) > . > . > mpt: mpt_read_cfg_page: Config Info Status 22 > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): mpt_refresh_raid_vol: Failed to read RAID Vol > Page(0) > -------------------------------------------- > Volume Config Page values > -------------------------------------------- > Header PageVersion 0x6 > Header PageLength 0x12 > Header PageNumber 0x0 > Header PageType 0x8 > VolumeID 0 > VolumeBus 0 > VolumeIOC 0 > VolumeType 0 > VolumeType Flags 0x0 > VolumeType State 0x0 > VolumeType Reserved 0x0 > VolumeSettings settings 0x0 > VolumeSettings HotSparePool 0x0 > VolumeSettings Reserved 0x0 > MaxLBA 0 > Reserved1 0 > StripeSize 0 > Reserved2 0 > Reserved3 0 > NumPhysDisks 0 > DataScrubRate 0 > ResyncRate 0 > InactiveStatus 0 > -------------------------------------------- > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): Settings ( ) > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): 0 Members: > mpt0:vol0(mpt0:0:0): RAID-0 - Optimal > . > . > . > (mpt0:0:6): Physical (mpt0:0:6), Pass-thru (mpt0:1:0) > (mpt0:0:6): Online > (mpt0:0:4): Physical (mpt0:0:4), Pass-thru (mpt0:1:1) > (mpt0:0:4): Online > . > . > . > (probe5:mpt0:0:5:0): Uninitialized Transport 8:1e? > da0 at mpt0 bus 0 target 5 lun 0 > da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-2 device > da0: 300.000MB/s transfers > da0: 37193MB (76171264 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 4741C) > . > . > ------------------------------- Snippet end --------------------------- > > > Johan > From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 13:19:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D041016A407 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:19:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (qb-out-0506.google.com [72.14.204.237]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07F343D91 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:18:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id a10so170214qbd for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:18:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=S8ZpkBDONT6/U7pwmxcRrhAzTmtjSAnULhgO3l5AmleFOpc5bHbXm4uxlpjUQN+M3CedAnsFqm+rFD6Z5bQSYB1CVVom6nkVkAztY7906yiCOXzEdIf4wR7rvwS6VZjFd76h7M4qLOVKlyw4O7lOrYHVYucOJGVQZOjZkz3QKFA= Received: by 10.35.48.15 with SMTP id a15mr5666377pyk; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.105.10 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:18:57 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" Sender: infofarmer@gmail.com To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 464479b0a0b3f02a Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:19:00 -0000 On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > > which use vulnerable libraries. > > The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > of view :) Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on performance? I know Gentoo has this Prelink feature (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml) which helps with performance, but looks like a hack. Anyway, maybe portmgr could issue some kind of a policy about this. I.e. (1) use {build,run}_depends instead of lib_ when you depend on a port providing both shared and static libraries, but link statically; (2) make an effort to encourage dynamic linking - try to provide only shared libs in new ports, remove unused static ones from old ones, and so on. The only secure way to deal with it now is to mark all ports that depend on a vulnerable one, also vulnerable - and then try to figure out which of them are indeed safe. Of course, this will result in half of the tree being marked vulnerable most of the time :-( Thanks! From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 13:45:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49ED16A403; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:45:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACCB43D5A; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:45:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (azwtcf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9DDjYfc030562; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:45:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9DDjYkD030561; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:45:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:45:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <452E8FDF.4050003@FreeBSD.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:45:40 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:45:43 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > In this case, the "real" time is much larger than the > > "user" time. I guess that's the overhead of 85677 files > > and 23399 directories (according to find(1)). :-) > > Did you perform your tests once only with each method, and one right > after the other? If so, the effect you saw might be due to file system > caching. I performed each test several times in succession. If the first run was much different from the rest, I ignored it, so the caches were filled the same on all runs. But 100,000 files still cause some I/O overhead, even if the data is cached and the I/O requests don't actually hit the physical disks. Anyway, my point is not about caching and I/O. The numbers are pretty normal in that regard. My point is about the difference in CPU ("user") time when using "tar -cz" vs. "tar -c | gzip". Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some optimized assembler code (for x86 and 680x0), while libz doesn't have such a thing. Maybe that's the reason why gzip is noticeably faster. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony number 9." -- Erwin Dieterich From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 16:48:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF7816A4E2; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:48:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tim@kientzle.com) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745A043EAB; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:47:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim@kientzle.com) Received: from [10.0.0.221] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k9DGlO24013537; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tim@kientzle.com) Message-ID: <452FC31C.2030505@kientzle.com> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:47:24 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:48:18 -0000 Oliver Fromme wrote: > Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some > optimized assembler code ... Maybe that's the reason why > gzip is noticeably faster. Anyone care to try this test on PPC, ARM, or Sparc? There's a move afoot to replace the GPL gzip with a more openly-licensed gzip implemented on top of libz. I wonder if the libz implementors have similar assembly optimizations that we should be using? Tim Kientzle From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 16:56:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCC016A415 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:56:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from khall@stbernard.com) Received: from mail.stbernard.com (mail.stbernard.com [64.154.93.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7814443D70 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:56:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from khall@stbernard.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:56:32 -0700 Message-ID: <00C5463E8A5F7C41A8396D701A6734B1601F29@mail01.stbernard.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? Thread-Index: Acbuv2eWG/5oVZ10TWyu1tVQhfqI+QAKIJUA From: "Kelly Hall" To: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:56:50 -0000 > From: Pieter de Goeje > Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? > > The tar|gzip command uses 18% less CPU and is 10% faster. It=20 > is clear the HDD is the bottleneck. Now it's clear to me :) This makes sense if tar is single-threaded: there's only one thread of execution, and it can either be waiting on the disk, or compressing data. With two processes, gzip can compress while tar blocks on disk IO. Maybe the rest of you figured this out immediately, but it took my coffee a while to take effect ;) Kelly From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:07:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A21716A407; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1058E43D97; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.6/8.13.8) id k9DH7Xkm086350; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:07:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:07:33 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20061013170733.GA2226@dan.emsphone.com> References: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> <452FC31C.2030505@kientzle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452FC31C.2030505@kientzle.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, kientzle@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:43 -0000 In the last episode (Oct 13), Tim Kientzle said: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > >Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some optimized > >assembler code ... Maybe that's the reason why gzip is noticeably > >faster. > > Anyone care to try this test on PPC, ARM, or Sparc? The only assembly in our match.S is for x86 and 68k. Newer gzips also include an ia64 version. > There's a move afoot to replace the GPL gzip with a more > openly-licensed gzip implemented on top of libz. I wonder if the > libz implementors have similar assembly optimizations that we should > be using? Odd. I actually disabled the assembly file in my tree because gcc generated 20%-faster code from deflate.c than the provided assembly code in match.S , at least on a pIII. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:19:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1224916A403 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:19:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C092343D45 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:19:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9DHJllJ025556; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4/Submit) id k9DHJak1025551; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200610131719.k9DHJak1025551@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Steven Hartland" References: <17707.64434.913943.549852@bhuda.mired.org> <200610110934.k9B9YASW081294@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061011133250.GA483@britannica.bec.de> <01a301c6ede8$061e9160$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Joerg Sonnenberger Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:19:51 -0000 : :Just a silly one but are you guys using the same :version of gzip, would be worth just checking? It could also simply be a piplining issue. If the pipe inbetween the 'tar' and the 'gzip' is too small (whether gzip is internal to tar or not), then the 'tar' portion could wind up getting blocked by the 'gzip' portion and not do disk I/O in parallel with the cpu that the gzip portion uses. Here I am presuming that there is in fact a fork internal to tar when using the built-in gzip. There had better be, or performance would be horrible! In anycase, the pipe buffer needs to be at least 2x the block size gzip uses internally when compressing. I would even recommend making it very large, like several hundred kilobytes (at least). It is the same problem one faces when, say, streaming data to a slow device such as a tape drive. You want a large pipe buffer to avoid unsightly stalls of the code scanning the filesystem. -Matt From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:42:16 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6FC16A40F for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:42:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rick@kiwi-computer.com) Received: from kiwi-computer.com (megan.kiwi-computer.com [63.224.10.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15A7443D8E for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:42:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rick@kiwi-computer.com) Received: (qmail 87100 invoked by uid 2001); 13 Oct 2006 17:42:15 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:42:15 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061013174215.GB83555@keira.kiwi-computer.com> References: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:42:16 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:04:07AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:41:37AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > > > > Later, if root filesystem is remounted readonly, then fsck is called, > > it will says "NO WRITE ACCESS". > > mount -ur / I'm pretty sure that's what he tried (hence "remounted readonly"). I've noticed this behavior as well and it is quite frustrating. If you boot single-user, / will be mounted read-only and you can fsck it. If you do: mount -u / mount -u -r / You can no longer fsck it. I've been meaning to track this down and/or file a PR. I'm pretty sure this used to work just fine in 3.x and 5.x. -- Rick C. Petty From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:12:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94D116A47C for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:12:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (mailrelay1.uni-rostock.de [139.30.8.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AC343DB6 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:12:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de ([127.0.0.1]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:38 +0200 Received: from antivirus.uni-rostock.de (unverified) by antivirus.exch.rz.uni-rostock.de (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.20) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:38 +0200 Received: from mail pickup service by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:37 +0200 X-SCL: 1 44.7% Received: from mail.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.8.11]) by antivirus.uni-rostock.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:33 +0200 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail2.uni-rostock.de by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) id <0J7300E015TCL2@mail.uni-rostock.de> (original mail from joerg@britannica.bec.de) for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:32 +0200 (MEST) Received: from britannica.bec.de (storm.stura.uni-rostock.de [139.30.252.72]) by mail2.uni-rostock.de (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.09 (built Nov 18 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J73002Z15WXIN@mail.uni-rostock.de> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:58:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99A2A56E4; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:57:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:57:20 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger In-reply-to: <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mail-followup-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-id: <20061013175720.GA5150@britannica.bec.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) References: <452E8FDF.4050003@FreeBSD.org> <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2006 18:12:33.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[27AF2090:01C6EEF3] Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:12:55 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:45:34PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some > optimized assembler code (for x86 and 680x0), while libz > doesn't have such a thing. Maybe that's the reason why > gzip is noticeably faster. I'm not sure what happened in the mean time, but when I did the tests in 2004, libz was faster. *sigh* The assembly doesn't seem to help much, at least not the longest_match version. Might be a good idea to look at crc32, but I don't have the time now :-( Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 17:28:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550E216A407 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1325C43D68 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (hevuhu@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9DHSbg9042017 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:28:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k9DHSb2P042016; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:28:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:28:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200610131728.k9DHSb2P042016@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <00C5463E8A5F7C41A8396D701A6734B1601F29@mail01.stbernard.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:28:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:29:56 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:47 -0000 Kelly Hall wrote: > > From: Pieter de Goeje > > Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? > > > > The tar|gzip command uses 18% less CPU and is 10% faster. It > > is clear the HDD is the bottleneck. > > Now it's clear to me :) > > This makes sense if tar is single-threaded: there's only one thread of > execution, and it can either be waiting on the disk, or compressing > data. With two processes, gzip can compress while tar blocks on disk > IO. No. During my tests there was no physical disk I/O (the disk LED was *OFF* all the time). So tar certainly wasn't blocking on disk I/O. The difference in CPU time (and wall clock time) seems simply to be caused by different compression code. gzip is noticeably more efficient than libz, at least on the OS/processor combination where I tested it (Athlon64 with FreeBSD/i386 6.2-PRERELEASE). Depending on the type of data, the difference is between 25% and 40%. If the data is not compressible (like stuff from /dev/random, or already compressed files), it's only 25%. For very good compressible data (best case: /dev/null), the difference is 40%. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. cat man du : where Unix geeks go when they die From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:49:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9A816A49E for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEB643D55 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9DInSqT016680; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:49:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:16:51 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> <20061013174215.GB83555@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <20061013174215.GB83555@keira.kiwi-computer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610131416.51379.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:49:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/2030/Fri Oct 13 09:34:34 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Subject: Re: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:49:39 -0000 On Friday 13 October 2006 13:42, Rick C. Petty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:04:07AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:41:37AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > > > > > > Later, if root filesystem is remounted readonly, then fsck is called, > > > it will says "NO WRITE ACCESS". > > > > mount -ur / > > I'm pretty sure that's what he tried (hence "remounted readonly"). I've > noticed this behavior as well and it is quite frustrating. If you boot > single-user, / will be mounted read-only and you can fsck it. If you do: > > mount -u / > mount -u -r / > > You can no longer fsck it. I've been meaning to track this down and/or > file a PR. I'm pretty sure this used to work just fine in 3.x and 5.x. I think it's broken in 5.x as well. It's fallout from GEOM IIRC, and it is annoying. -- John Baldwin From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:54:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8EC16A407 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA6F43D76 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:54:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9DIsKUA026431; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4/Submit) id k9DIsKTV026430; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200610131854.k9DIsKTV026430@apollo.backplane.com> To: Joerg Sonnenberger References: <452E8FDF.4050003@FreeBSD.org> <200610131345.k9DDjYkD030561@lurza.secnetix.de> <20061013175720.GA5150@britannica.bec.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:54:23 -0000 :On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:45:34PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: :> Meanwhile I had a quick look at the code: gzip uses some :> optimized assembler code (for x86 and 680x0), while libz :> doesn't have such a thing. Maybe that's the reason why :> gzip is noticeably faster. : :I'm not sure what happened in the mean time, but when I did the tests in :2004, libz was faster. *sigh* The assembly doesn't seem to help much, at :least not the longest_match version. Might be a good idea to look at :crc32, but I don't have the time now :-( : :Joerg I very vaguely remember someone mentioning assembly optimized code for our libz, or something... I don't remember precisely. I think my response was along the lines of "as long as a C version always works, knock yourself out". -Matt From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 18:58:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B004216A47E for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:58:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rick@kiwi-computer.com) Received: from kiwi-computer.com (megan.kiwi-computer.com [63.224.10.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB04D43D6D for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:57:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rick@kiwi-computer.com) Received: (qmail 88724 invoked by uid 2001); 13 Oct 2006 18:57:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:57:58 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20061013185757.GA88689@keira.kiwi-computer.com> References: <20061013074136.GA31459@zen.inc> <20061013080407.GA26522@britannica.bec.de> <20061013174215.GB83555@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <200610131416.51379.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610131416.51379.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fscking a partition mounted Read only... X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:58:02 -0000 On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:16:51PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 13 October 2006 13:42, Rick C. Petty wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure that's what he tried (hence "remounted readonly"). I've > > noticed this behavior as well and it is quite frustrating. If you boot > > single-user, / will be mounted read-only and you can fsck it. If you do: > > > > mount -u / > > mount -u -r / > > > > You can no longer fsck it. I've been meaning to track this down and/or > > file a PR. I'm pretty sure this used to work just fine in 3.x and 5.x. > > I think it's broken in 5.x as well. It's fallout from GEOM IIRC, and it is > annoying. Grr, I meant 4.x not 5.x, and I thought the problem started about the time bg fsck was introduced... -- Rick C. Petty From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:13:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31CE16A417 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (relay0.rambler.ru [81.19.66.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C0643DD3 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9464C5D7C for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:12:13 +0400 (MSD) Received: from edoofus.park.rambler.ru (unknown [81.19.65.108]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DDA5CDF for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:12:13 +0400 (MSD) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.park.rambler.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) id k9DKCKeN028441 for hackers@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:12:20 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ru) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:12:20 +0400 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20061013201220.GG28074@rambler-co.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: No virus found Cc: Subject: VBAD vnodes? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:33 -0000 --gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there, This has been noticed on all 5.x, 6.x, and 7.0 systems around here: adjkerntz and xterm processes have VBAD type vnodes attached to some of their descriptors. What this is supposed to mean? $ fstat | grep -w bad root xterm 976 6 - - bad - root xterm 869 6 - - bad - root adjkerntz 147 0 - - bad - root adjkerntz 147 1 - - bad - root adjkerntz 147 2 - - bad - On RELENG_4, it's "s/bad/none/". Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFL/MkqRfpzJluFF4RAhTDAJ40Rb/4UNlM0jiXrxDdcYzL4g0D2wCfVCIS ADqmMYPnZse2HOmbhAIc4Kw= =W8pI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gvF4niNJ+uBMJnEh-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 20:43:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A3616A403; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:43:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0250543D45; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:43:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9DKhcBp027126; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.13.7/8.13.4/Submit) id k9DKhcUY027125; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200610132043.k9DKhcUY027125@apollo.backplane.com> To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <20061013201220.GG28074@rambler-co.ru> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VBAD vnodes? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:43:39 -0000 :Hi there, : :This has been noticed on all 5.x, 6.x, and 7.0 systems around :here: : :adjkerntz and xterm processes have VBAD type vnodes attached :to some of their descriptors. What this is supposed to mean? : :$ fstat | grep -w bad :root xterm 976 6 - - bad - :... : :On RELENG_4, it's "s/bad/none/". : :Cheers, : :Ruslan Ermilov These are almost certainly descriptors whos vnodes have been revoked with revoke(). This most commonly occurs on tty (or pty) descriptors. For example, if you logout of a tty session with background processes running, the tty is revoked so it can be reused and so the processes still running cannot mess around with someone else who reuses the tty. Here is an example: shell1# xterm (from xterm) shell2# sleep 300 & [1] 38290 shell2# exit shell1# fstat -p 38290 USER CMD PID FD PATH INUM MODE SZ|DV R/W dillon sleep 38290 root / 2 drwxr-xr-x 1024 r dillon sleep 38290 wd /home/dillon 224000 drwxr-xr-x 6144 r dillon sleep 38290 text /bin/sleep 10652 -r-xr-xr-x 101344 r dillon sleep 38290 0 - - none - dillon sleep 38290 1 - - none - dillon sleep 38290 2 - - none - -Matt From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 13 21:41:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C927E16A40F for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:41:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (relay0.rambler.ru [81.19.66.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E79543D45 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:41:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6124E5D4D; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:41:20 +0400 (MSD) Received: from edoofus.park.rambler.ru (unknown [81.19.65.108]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AEA5D31; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:41:20 +0400 (MSD) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.park.rambler.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) id k9DLfR61045669; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:41:27 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ru) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:41:27 +0400 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Matthew Dillon Message-ID: <20061013214127.GA28481@rambler-co.ru> References: <20061013201220.GG28074@rambler-co.ru> <200610132043.k9DKhcUY027125@apollo.backplane.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610132043.k9DKhcUY027125@apollo.backplane.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: No virus found Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: VBAD vnodes? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:41:22 -0000 --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:43:38PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > These are almost certainly descriptors whos vnodes have been=20 > revoked with revoke(). This most commonly occurs on tty (or pty) > descriptors. For example, if you logout of a tty session > with background processes running, the tty is revoked so > it can be reused and so the processes still running cannot mess > around with someone else who reuses the tty. >=20 I've tracked it down to vgonerel() in the kernel, but didn't think it was so simple to reproduce. Thanks a lot! :-) Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFMAgHqRfpzJluFF4RArM1AJ9ojMTzcvsKKjJ0ffM219smTq6PZgCfW0/w YykeDCipgLZhqXR5FU5yK7w= =3LH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 00:32:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8290016A403; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:32:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3970C43D53; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:32:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2099B1A3C1A; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8F7B651569; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:32:38 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Andrew Pantyukhin Message-ID: <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:32:39 -0000 --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > >> which use vulnerable libraries. > > > >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > >of view :) >=20 > Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > performance? In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks it's really necessary for a given port. > I know Gentoo has this Prelink feature > (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml) which > helps with performance, but looks like a hack. >=20 > Anyway, maybe portmgr could issue some kind of a policy > about this. I.e. (1) use {build,run}_depends instead of lib_ > when you depend on a port providing both shared and > static libraries, but link statically; (2) make an effort to > encourage dynamic linking - try to provide only shared > libs in new ports, remove unused static ones from old > ones, and so on. (1) is just a statement of correct behaviour, no need for a policy about it (it could be clarified in the porters handbook if needed). (2) could also be added to the porter's handbook as a recommendation- I don't think we need a formal proclamation of policy about it. Kris P.S. I can provide a list of static binaries in ports if anyone wants to work on fixing them. --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFMDAlWry0BWjoQKURAln6AKCUOVI/zR2GbYsg7DIs5sPCd+MOUQCgoabX Y2bvuWGudlnKpR3pYTHC+xI= =sgqC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 01:14:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3E816A415 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:14:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from babkin@verizon.net) Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net (vms048pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC96343D5A for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:14:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from babkin@verizon.net) Received: from vms062.mailsrvcs.net ([192.168.1.3]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0J73002INQ2R50J0@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 198.190.8.100 ([198.190.8.100]) by vms062.mailsrvcs.net (Verizon Webmail) with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:39 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:13:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Sergey Babkin X-Originating-IP: [198.190.8.100] To: Oliver Fromme , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <392921.500871160788419415.JavaMail.root@vms062.mailsrvcs.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:38:45 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: Re: "tar -c|gzip" faster than "tar -cz"?!? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: babkin@users.sf.net List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:14:03 -0000 >From: Oliver Fromme > > > The tar|gzip command uses 18% less CPU and is 10% faster. It > > > is clear the HDD is the bottleneck. > > > > Now it's clear to me :) > > > > This makes sense if tar is single-threaded: there's only one thread of > > execution, and it can either be waiting on the disk, or compressing > > data. With two processes, gzip can compress while tar blocks on disk > > IO. > >No. During my tests there was no physical disk I/O (the >disk LED was *OFF* all the time). So tar certainly wasn't >blocking on disk I/O. > >The difference in CPU time (and wall clock time) seems >simply to be caused by different compression code. gzip >is noticeably more efficient than libz, at least on the >OS/processor combination where I tested it (Athlon64 with >FreeBSD/i386 6.2-PRERELEASE). Any chance that gzip uses a different version of libz? Or maybe the buffer size is different? Yet another possibility could be if tar calls zlib with the SYNC (or is that FLUSH? something like that) flag on each chunk, this would kill both the performance and the compression rate. Then again, the default compression level may be different (but it should be making the speed higher if the ratio falls lower). -SB From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 11:32:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1313F16A417 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:32:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com (hu-out-0506.google.com [72.14.214.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2792143D6D for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:32:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 34so701961hui for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:32:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=tWMmXExjRmxo0GkoftCn9em8dPNRpmdkC0lBlJCphvFhlwSrdtBNL6Ct1tJ1jN5dUw8Dq1s4MQfmKWLQeuch5sB7hDYByJqVL1+h1gYZN2GLuETzIrVaNaTkeh/NnapkHCXQY/MEEP16elxiWumyt8sSlCkFxCwTJtE6h+q7s4w= Received: by 10.78.201.8 with SMTP id y8mr5096001huf; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.167.16 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:32:20 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" Sender: infofarmer@gmail.com To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5d9a782b98a4f043 Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:32:24 -0000 On 10/14/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > Anyway, maybe portmgr could issue some kind of a policy > > about this. I.e. (1) use {build,run}_depends instead of lib_ > > when you depend on a port providing both shared and > > static libraries, but link statically; (2) make an effort to > > encourage dynamic linking - try to provide only shared > > libs in new ports, remove unused static ones from old > > ones, and so on. > > (1) is just a statement of correct behaviour, no need for a policy > about it (it could be clarified in the porters handbook if needed). > (2) could also be added to the porter's handbook as a recommendation- > I don't think we need a formal proclamation of policy about it. Again, the problem is tracking what ports are affected by vulnerabilities. Making static linking optional will only help if pkgname is changed in a mandatory fashion. Moreover there are ports with mixed linking (afaik, mplayer is one of them). So if we go easy on maintainers, then we should either put sufficient human resources to exploring security issues manually in each particular case, or in absence thereof, act paranoid and mark a lot of ports vulnerable. > P.S. I can provide a list of static binaries in ports if anyone wants > to work on fixing them. It would be great if we could find a way to make a list of what particular libraries each port is statically linked against. Meanwhile, I'll try to ask around as to how they deal with it in other projects. Thanks! From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 12:11:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C8416A40F for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:11:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from buhnux@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5E143D67 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:11:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from buhnux@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so1739597nfb for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Wz7YFjbhw4vAmXwP0o4irHZXk5DRzCfAxlNOrLeKQmgbaIEoZPQ2k4rYVPJkdCKHUG3NgG+vY69MNsH17NqsPQB0Xny5OJssbnMm58TEXt4KoKHKXbKEfv+nmlWfYkV8FfOHGAnsU446nCTey/2dGASzyqBpVxA2MVUMKgVrKVw= Received: by 10.78.94.37 with SMTP id r37mr5078207hub; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.183.3 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:11:56 -0400 From: "Michael Johnson" Sender: buhnux@gmail.com To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c8bb657284e641ac Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:12:00 -0000 On 10/13/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > > >> which use vulnerable libraries. > > > > > >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > > >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > > >of view :) > > > > Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > > performance? > > In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is > not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I > saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is > statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily > subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks > it's really necessary for a given port. Each of the ports listed in this thread are bad examples of finding static linked to ffmpeg. libxine, gstreamer-ffmpeg, and mplayer include ffmpeg in their source and don't link to multimedia/ffmpeg. Patching these ports to use a shared version of ffmpeg is pretty much out of the question since we would lose support from the authors. With that said I do see the point you're making and I do agree if at all possible make a shared library. Michael > > > I know Gentoo has this Prelink feature > > (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/prelink-howto.xml) which > > helps with performance, but looks like a hack. > > > > Anyway, maybe portmgr could issue some kind of a policy > > about this. I.e. (1) use {build,run}_depends instead of lib_ > > when you depend on a port providing both shared and > > static libraries, but link statically; (2) make an effort to > > encourage dynamic linking - try to provide only shared > > libs in new ports, remove unused static ones from old > > ones, and so on. > > (1) is just a statement of correct behaviour, no need for a policy > about it (it could be clarified in the porters handbook if needed). > (2) could also be added to the porter's handbook as a recommendation- > I don't think we need a formal proclamation of policy about it. > > Kris > > P.S. I can provide a list of static binaries in ports if anyone wants > to work on fixing them. > > > From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 12:23:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46A916A412; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:23:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from mx.nitro.dk (zarniwoop.nitro.dk [83.92.207.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D42C43D45; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:23:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from zaphod.nitro.dk (unknown [192.168.3.39]) by mx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD752FFFBE; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zaphod.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 3000) id 28BE41142D; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:23:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:23:57 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" To: Michael Johnson Message-ID: <20061014122356.GD45953@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:23:58 -0000 On 2006.10.14 08:11:56 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote: > On 10/13/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > >> >> which use vulnerable libraries. > >> > > >> >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > >> >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > >> >of view :) > >> > >> Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > >> performance? > > > >In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is > >not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I > >saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is > >statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily > >subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks > >it's really necessary for a given port. > > Each of the ports listed in this thread are bad examples of > finding static linked to ffmpeg. libxine, gstreamer-ffmpeg, and mplayer > include ffmpeg in their source and don't link to multimedia/ffmpeg. > Patching these ports to use a shared version of ffmpeg is pretty > much out of the question since we would lose support from the > authors. If ports include their own vulnerable version each port should be marked vulnerable and fixed. We have already done this for zlib, libtiff etc. in the past. For ports which just links statically against a library from another port, and therefor need to be recompiled after the library port is updated I don't think they should be marked vulnerable in VuXML, but it might be a good idea to bump the portrevision of the ports to force a recompile (at least I don't see any better ways to do this). -- Simon L. Nielsen FreeBSD Security Team From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 13:41:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F04816A403 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:41:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DE043D5A for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:41:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de) Received: from [84.173.204.149] (helo=[192.168.0.136]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1GYjlc2Ef2-00005i; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:41:32 +0200 From: Ekkehard Morgenstern To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:40:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610141540.09999.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:9985dda5cbe98f4670734048a5dbacd9 Subject: Threading system calls (int 80h) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:41:35 -0000 Hi! Does anyone know how to use the threading system calls that are accessible via int 80h? I would like to support multithreading in an assembly language program without linking to any of the threading libraries. Is that possible? Best wishes, Ekkehard. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 15:20:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4395D16A4C9 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:20:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F9443DCA for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:19:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p77so1318152nfc for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=D4qoGrqLKy7XfLKcq5gUS8e/gtS1YsSRKM+rEIMmGFLrAMFGDPigiOuH/k82ADV02zallt6wNiWcLv23JDH6bRVWh73jd55lV3mC2sk2NZ6zSGgCU/6ztFX2nsWPTZr4Ij9pW1KOvdi105ET4OU6ILUYZlTiNhvJbk7ujuorGvc= Received: by 10.78.203.13 with SMTP id a13mr5304000hug; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.167.16 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:19:52 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" Sender: infofarmer@gmail.com To: "Simon L. Nielsen" In-Reply-To: <20061014122356.GD45953@zaphod.nitro.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061006215902.GA21109@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061014003238.GA6341@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061014122356.GD45953@zaphod.nitro.dk> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6291d378e7322082 Cc: Michael Johnson , hackers@freebsd.org, secteam@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Tracing binaries statically linked against vulnerable libs X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:20:47 -0000 On 10/14/06, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > On 2006.10.14 08:11:56 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote: > > On 10/13/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:18:57PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> On 10/7/06, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >> >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:35:31AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > >> >> I wonder if there is a way to deal with statically linked binaries, > > >> >> which use vulnerable libraries. > > >> > > > >> >The best way is to track them down and force them all to link > > >> >dynamically; static linking is a PITA from a systems management point > > >> >of view :) > > >> > > >> Do you think we could do that without a serious impact on > > >> performance? > > > > > >In most of the cases I've looked at the statically linked binary is > > >not performance critical or otherwise necessary (the only exception I > > >saw is for some tripwire-like port whose name I forget, which is > > >statically linked as a security enhancement, to make it lease easily > > >subverted). Static linking can be made an OPTION if someone thinks > > >it's really necessary for a given port. > > > > Each of the ports listed in this thread are bad examples of > > finding static linked to ffmpeg. libxine, gstreamer-ffmpeg, and mplayer > > include ffmpeg in their source and don't link to multimedia/ffmpeg. > > Patching these ports to use a shared version of ffmpeg is pretty > > much out of the question since we would lose support from the > > authors. > > If ports include their own vulnerable version each port should be > marked vulnerable and fixed. We have already done this for zlib, > libtiff etc. in the past. Yes. The question is how to discover them without a dozen of full-time security officers (i.e. in a scriptable/automated way). > For ports which just links statically against a library from another > port, and therefor need to be recompiled after the library port is > updated I don't think they should be marked vulnerable in VuXML, but > it might be a good idea to bump the portrevision of the ports to force > a recompile (at least I don't see any better ways to do this). Why not mark them vulnerable? There are many people who upgrade _only_ vulnerable ports. We would deceive them if we just bumped portrevisions. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 16:06:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38B216A412 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:06:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0445843D5E for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:06:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de) Received: from [84.173.204.149] (helo=[192.168.0.136]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu5) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML25U-1GYm1R2FCY-0007mE; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:06:02 +0200 From: Ekkehard Morgenstern To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:04:39 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200610141540.09999.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> In-Reply-To: <200610141540.09999.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610141804.40105.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:9985dda5cbe98f4670734048a5dbacd9 Subject: Re: Threading system calls (int 80h) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:06:10 -0000 I can answer the question myself now: - manpages of interest are kse(2) and ucontext(3) - FreeBSD threading relies on external threading libraries, such as libthr, libpthread. - hence, it's difficult to impossible to write an assembly language program that creates threads using direct system calls. So, I guess, I have to go with one of the threading libraries... On Saturday 14 October 2006 15:40, Ekkehard Morgenstern wrote: > Hi! > > Does anyone know how to use the threading system calls that are accessible > via int 80h? > > I would like to support multithreading in an assembly language program > without linking to any of the threading libraries. > > Is that possible? > > Best wishes, > Ekkehard. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 23:32:14 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24DE16A407; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:32:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) From: David Xu To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:32:06 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200610141540.09999.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> In-Reply-To: <200610141540.09999.ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610150732.06291.davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: Ekkehard Morgenstern Subject: Re: Threading system calls (int 80h) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:32:14 -0000 On Saturday 14 October 2006 21:40, Ekkehard Morgenstern wrote: > Hi! > > Does anyone know how to use the threading system calls that are accessible > via int 80h? > > I would like to support multithreading in an assembly language program > without linking to any of the threading libraries. > > Is that possible? > > Best wishes, > Ekkehard. You are going to be unable to use libc if you create raw thread in your program, libc uses pthread APIs, if you create a raw thread, your program will crash if you use any libc function which needs pthread interface. David Xu