search for: lastused

I have a zone "rw" defined as tun0 in interfaces. From that zone, pings to zone "loc" succeed but pings to remote networks (On IPsec VPNs) are rejected in the all2all chain. From my point of view, these pings should be in the rw2cctc chain. (rw to cctc is ACCEPTed in policy.) I must have a hole in my config, where would it be? Thanks, A.

Dear Shorewall Users :-) I''ve been playing with shorewall for some time now - I found it really interesting and easy tool to organise all the rules and so on (beforethat I''ve been using simple iptables rules in shell script ;-) Generally it''s quite easy to be used, but anyway found one problem which I cannot handle myself - or in other words - cannot find appropriate

This morning I discovered this in the logwatch report for our external MX backup host. STARTTLS: write error=syscall error (-1), errno=32, get_error=error:00000000:lib(0):func(0):reason(0), retry=99, ssl_err=5: 206 Time(s) I also see many entries similar to this: 8: fl=0x802, mode=140777: SOCK inet04.mississauga.harte-lyne.ca/34091->(Transport endpoint is not connected): 1 Time(s)

Lang, I think I am getting closer to understanding this. The findLastUseBefore() should probably look something like this: // Return the last use of reg between NewIdx and OldIdx. SlotIndex findLastUseBefore(unsigned Reg, SlotIndex OldIdx) { SlotIndex LastUse = NewIdx; if (TargetRegisterInfo::isPhysicalRegister(Reg)) { for (MCRegUnitRootIterator Roots(Reg,

...hard: 0(bytes) soft: 0(bytes) > allocated: 15 hard: 0 soft: 0 > sadb_seq=0 pid=4820 refcnt=0 > > # setkey -DP > 192.168.3.0/24[any] 1.2.3.4[any] any > in prio def ipsec > esp/tunnel/5.6.7.8-1.2.3.4/require > created: Sep 3 17:11:49 2007 lastused: > lifetime: 0(s) validtime: 0(s) > spid=2184 seq=1 pid=4821 > refcnt=1 > 1.2.3.4[any] 5.6.7.8[any] any > in prio def ipsec > esp/tunnel/1.2.3.4-5.6.7.8/require > created: Sep 3 17:11:49 2007 lastused: Sep 3 17:55:24 2007 > lifeti...

Hi, I''m asking my question here, because I could not find any answer to my problem, but I''m affraid shorewall is not the one to blame. First of all I''m using shorewall version 2.0.15 on two linux box. I set up an ipsec tunnel beetween those 2 boxes to be ables to connect 2 not routable subnetworks. Here is my network topology: 10.66.17.0/24 - 10.66.17.1 = eth0

Hi, I run a fully updated CentOS 4.4 machine. This morning I got the errors below in my daily Logwatch report (Sendmail part). What has happend? Just some new bogus spammer that cant get the protocol right or is the server under attack? I have googled around but cannot fins any answer or I just suck at googleing... Any ideas ? Jens --------------------- sendmail Begin

Hi Lang, Just one more quick question. in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp In SlotIndex findLastUseBefore(unsigned Reg, SlotIndex OldIdx) Did you really mean to use for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_nodbg_iterator UI = MRI.use_nodbg_begin(Reg), UE = MRI.use_nodbg_end(); UI != UE; UI.skipInstruction()) {} Aren't we currently dealing with units,

Hi Sergei, I just fixed the broken test case for PR13719 with r163107, but from the debugging output you've posted it suspect it won't fix your test case. Your analysis looks good - findLastUseBefore(..) doesn't appear to be handling physregs. I'm surprised that isn't causing more failures. I'll see if I can find a failing case in the LLVM test-suite (it's been a

Am 25.11.2014 um 21:39 schrieb James B. Byrne: > This morning I discovered this in the logwatch report for our external MX > backup host. > > > STARTTLS: write error=syscall error (-1), errno=32, > get_error=error:00000000:lib(0):func(0):reason(0), retry=99, ssl_err=5: 206 > Time(s) > > > > I also see many entries similar to this: > > > > 8:

"Daniel Stewart" <stewartd at codeaurora.org> writes: > I'm no expert on the PassManager, but I happen to be going through it > fairly carefully right now. You didn't state which passes were Module > Passes and which were Function Passes (or other types). Sorry, I did mean to include that. They are all FunctionPasses. > One thing I have noticed is that

...BOOL conn_idle_all(time_t t, int deadtime) { - BOOL allidle = True; - connection_struct *conn, *next; + BOOL allidle = True; + int i, num_passed; - for (conn=Connections;conn;conn=next) { - next=conn->next; - /* close dirptrs on connections that are idle */ - if ((t-conn->lastused) > DPTR_IDLE_TIMEOUT) - dptr_idlecnum(conn); - - if (conn->num_files_open > 0 || - (t-conn->lastused)<deadtime) - allidle = False; - } + for ( num_passed = 0, i = 0; i < MAX_CONNECTIONS; i++ ) { + if ( cth.Connections[i] ) { + connection_struct *con...

Regards! During the use of areski a2billing software I'm getting same problem all the time. Actually, after 15 minutes of speaking to someone over calling card, connection brakes. Installation was as smooth as it could be so I don't think I made same kind of a mess in that domain. This is the only problem in the aplication. In the logs everything seems to be fine. I'am sending You

"Daniel Stewart" <stewartd at codeaurora.org> writes: > You haven't mentioned if your passes are implementers of an interface > (like AliasAnalysis). No, they're just regular FunctionPasses. > What seems to matter as far as having a pass free'd from memory are > the LastUsers. The LastUsers are set by required passes. So if a pass > says it requires

Regards! During the use of areski a2billing software I'm getting same problem all the time. Actually, after 15 minutes of speaking to someone over calling card, connection brakes. Installation was as smooth as it could be so I don't think I made same kind of a mess in that domain. This is the only problem in the aplication. In the logs everything seems to be fine. I'am sending You

...8.1.0/24 -|A|- 62.212.109.16 <--- INTERNET ---> 82.234.240.117 -|B|- 192.168.0.0/24 On "B", setkey -DP gives the following: 192.168.0.0/24[any] 192.168.1.0/24[any] any out ipsec esp/tunnel/82.234.240.117-62.212.109.16/require created: Apr 27 12:18:35 2005 lastused: lifetime: 0(s) validtime: 0(s) spid=313 seq=5 pid=5812 refcnt=1 When I try to ping the A router from the B router (using 192.168. addresses of course), packets are sent unencrypted. And I can''t figure out why. Does anyone have an idea? I''ve already set...

Hi, We had a problem with AssertingValueHandles exploding in opt for certain sequences of passes and registered TR 27050<https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27050> for this. No takers, so I decided to dig a bit deeper into it and found the cause: The CallGraph construction is run twice, and as the first instance is left lying around even after the point at which its analysis is determined

Hi, Not sure if I should post in samba-technical or just samba list. Please advise. Back in February I was trying to do a samba-tool classicupgrade but kept getting SIGSEGV: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2017-February/206409.html I didn't progress much after that. This week I've compiled samba-4.6.5 and installed that. Following the HOW-TO for classic upgrade

Hi Sergei, Andy, Sorry - I got distracted with some other work. I'm looking into this and PR13719 now. I'll let you know what I find out. Sergei - thanks very much for the investigation. That should help me pin this down. Cheers, Lang. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Andy, Lang, > > Thanks for the suggestion. >

Andy, Lang, Thanks for the suggestion. I have spent more time with it today, and I do see some strange things in liveness update. I am not at the actual cause yet, but here is what I got so far: I have the following live ranges when I start scheduling a region: R2 = [0B,48r:0)[352r,416r:5)... R3 = [0B,48r:0)[368r,416r:5)... R4 = [0B,32r:0)[384r,416r:4)... R5 = [0B,32r:0)[400r,416r:4)...