From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Mar 23 12:14:07 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892E7ADA36D for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from a@i-pi.pl) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2031D87 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from a@i-pi.pl) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 6AC27ADA36C; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A619ADA36B for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from a@i-pi.pl) Received: from mx1.i-pi.pl (mx2.security.edu.pl [91.197.89.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D43D1D86 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from a@i-pi.pl) Received: from mx1.i-pi.pl (mx2.security.edu.pl [192.168.34.10]) by mx1.i-pi.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F4EAD79; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:06:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=i-pi.pl; s=dkim; t=1458734778; bh=aFW4eaBijv/mW8XO8m2cASUsOvtZdlej5The7NZzovM=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To; b=TEAMaGUN6xfQ+DQvx11Ur06mTHeIm3LB5MmEFWV5sPcI01qx82lqwRyG0Dnv5l80O vbBVkujFR1nzH95kIEFmoU32JsR15OZG2kXEhsjAG0p4QF+9lZxw0dCkNJvOEbIWce kA+coQw2ogkuvZUhY1XS5rA9de7E18CbC8kkZ2dc= Received: from [10.122.192.128] (user-94-254-243-172.play-internet.pl [94.254.243.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.i-pi.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAE00AD78; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:06:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=i-pi.pl; s=dkim; t=1458734778; bh=aFW4eaBijv/mW8XO8m2cASUsOvtZdlej5The7NZzovM=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To; b=TEAMaGUN6xfQ+DQvx11Ur06mTHeIm3LB5MmEFWV5sPcI01qx82lqwRyG0Dnv5l80O vbBVkujFR1nzH95kIEFmoU32JsR15OZG2kXEhsjAG0p4QF+9lZxw0dCkNJvOEbIWce kA+coQw2ogkuvZUhY1XS5rA9de7E18CbC8kkZ2dc= In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Anti-virus for FreeBSD From: Adrian Huryn Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:06:10 +0100 To: Olivier Nicole ,questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <2ED5E17B-6CD1-4868-88C3-157E6B4EC0DF@i-pi.pl> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:14:07 -0000 Hello. Did you gry dr.Web AV for FreeBSD? Regards. Dnia 23 marca 2016 12:46:06 CET, Olivier Nicole napisał(a): >True, > >> I terms of mail you are not limited to unix bases solutions. Exim for >> example as the ability to pass the mail to a host:port for scanning. >That >> means you are not limited via os and therefore av vendor. > >And Amavis can do that too. But I would prefer to avoid that because: > >- it's one more system to manage, update, etc. Even more, a different > system. > >- sending the mail body through the net is less efficient than sending > it through a Unix socket (if the AV is on the same machine). > >best regards, > >Olivier > >> On 23 March 2016 at 06:01, Wayne Sierke wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 09:07 +0000, krad wrote: >>> >>> > Other than that clamav >>> > is good enough. >>> >>> I'm curious as to whether that's an objective or subjective view? >>> >>> I've got clam-av set up on a couple of mail boxes scanning incoming >>> messages and find a worrying amount of viral content still gets >>> through. Even after submitting false-negative reports, manual tests >>> conducted (days!) later have failed to detect them. >>> >>> To be fair, some of that also fails to be detected initially by >>> commercial AV scanners on MS Windows. However in one instance, for >>> example, one AV provider had an update deployed and distributed less >>> than two hours after they were notified. >>> >>> I've submitted suspect attachments to the Virus-Total web site to >find >>> that it was already submitted previously, sometimes long ago, and >clam- >>> av is listed with a negative detection result. >>> >>> >> >> [2:text/html Show] >> > >-- >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Mar 23 15:06:41 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2203DADAB37 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:06:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nevans@talkpoint.com) Received: from mailbox.talkpoint.com (mailbox.talkpoint.com [204.141.10.74]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84701F9C for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:06:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nevans@talkpoint.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailbox.talkpoint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7CAF66003; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at talkpoint.com Received: from mailbox.talkpoint.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailbox.talkpoint.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Ajl-xYNp8tR; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pleiades.nextvenue.com (pleiades.talkpoint.com [204.141.15.194]) by mailbox.talkpoint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BED8F66001; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:06:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:06:38 -0400 From: Nick Evans To: Peter Holm Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel 750 Panic Unmounting During TRIM Message-ID: <20160323110638.60913e18@pleiades.nextvenue.com> In-Reply-To: <20160323095358.GA63874@x2.osted.lan> References: <20160322125935.6be25e20@pleiades.nextvenue.com> <20160322202520.GA32179@x2.osted.lan> <20160323065745.GV1741@kib.kiev.ua> <20160323095358.GA63874@x2.osted.lan> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:06:41 -0000 On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:53:58 +0100 Peter Holm wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 08:57:45AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:25:20PM +0100, Peter Holm wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Nick Evans wrote: > > > > > > > > panic: losing buffer 1 > > > > cpuid = 2 > > This one is interesting. > > > > > > > > I see a different panic with this scenario: > > > panic: Lock Per-Filesystem Softdep Lock not exclusively locked @ ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c:1950 > > > > > > https://people.freebsd.org/~pho/stress/log/trim7.txt > > This issue should be fixed by the following patch. > > > > diff --git a/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c b/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c > > index 04ea39c..bedc8e1 100644 > > --- a/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep.c > > Yes, this patch fixes the "Per-Filesystem Softdep Lock" panic. > Still trying to reproduce the "loosing buffer" panic. > > - Peter If you have a patch you're unsure of I can test it at will on this box. Nick