search for: trainwreck

...subnet 192.168.0.192 [2003/05/21 22:46:17, 4] nmbd/nmbd_workgroupdb.c:find_workgroup_on_subnet(156) find_workgroup_on_subnet: workgroup search for WHITEROCK on subnet 192.168.0.192: found. [2003/05/21 22:46:17, 0] nmbd/nmbd_become_dmb.c:become_domain_master_stage2(110) ***** Samba server TRAINWRECK is now a domain master browser for workgroup WHITEROCK on subnet 192.168.0.192 <<then,later, during a failed logon>>: process_logon_packet: SAMLOGON request from FIREBALL(192.168.0.22) for , returning logon svr \\TRAINWRECK domain WHITEROCK code 13 token=ffff [2003/05/21 22:49:22,...

I am wondering what is the best way to mock such expression: "comment.initiator.group.name" What I do now is: =========================== comment = mock_model(Comment) initiator = mock_model(User) group = mock_model(Group, :name => "Admin") initiator.stub!(:group).and_return(group) comment.stub!(:initiator).and_return(initiator) =========================== So it becomes

...9;t think). Background ========== I took my previous PDC, and simply copied over all the user files and directories to the replacement PDC of the same name. I created same-named users on the new machine (LDAP) and checked that the directories and files are appropriately owned (they are): root@trainwreck:/home/samba/profiles-> ls -al total 4 drwxr-xrwt 7 root root 176 May 9 14:54 . drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 May 9 14:31 .. drwxr-xrwt 13 administrator Domain Admins 488 May 9 14:42 administrator drwxr-xrwt 14 chris Domain Admins 512 May 9 14:31...

...d. If stack recursion happens, something malicious from the HV side is going on, and all the kernel needs to be able to is to safely and reliably detect the situation and panic the VM to prevent any data corruption or loss or even leakage. > I'll keep repeating this, x86_64 exceptions are a trainwreck, and IST in > specific is utter crap. I agree, but don't forget the most prominent underlying reason for IST: The SYSCALL gap. If SYSCALL would switch stacks most of those issues would not exist. IST would still be needed because there are no task gates in x86-64, but still... Regards, J...

Hi All, I am new to rspec and it seems that I don''t understand some basics. I need to have a XML import which should parse through XML data and saves all that in various mysql tables. The XML part works just fine and I can test this with rspec. However when I try to execute it "should find country object for DE" do I get an error. @user.country is a one-to-many relation in

...physical PCIe thing? Not with existing guests which cannot be changed. Existing distros are out with those drivers. If we add a backward compatibility mechanism, then we could add something yes, provided we can segregate virtio onto a dedicated host bridge (which can be a problem with the libvirt trainwreck...) > It would be kind of nice to address this without > adding complexity to the virtio spec. Maybe virtio 1.0 devices could > be assumed to use bus addressing unless a new devicetree property says > otherwise. Cheers, Ben.

...physical PCIe thing? Not with existing guests which cannot be changed. Existing distros are out with those drivers. If we add a backward compatibility mechanism, then we could add something yes, provided we can segregate virtio onto a dedicated host bridge (which can be a problem with the libvirt trainwreck...) > It would be kind of nice to address this without > adding complexity to the virtio spec. Maybe virtio 1.0 devices could > be assumed to use bus addressing unless a new devicetree property says > otherwise. Cheers, Ben.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:07:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:55:12AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > So what happens if this #VC triggers on the first access to the #VC > stack, because the malicious host has craftily mucked with only the #VC > IST stack page? > > Or on the NMI IST stack, then we get #VC in NMI before the NMI can fix > you up.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1789 Summary: On linux use abstract socket for X11 connections if possible Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.5p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: sshd AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at

Hi I''m trying to spec a call to error_messages_for to avoid stubbing out whole models. Something like this: context "A rendered calculate_quote view" do setup do @form = mock("form") assigns[:form] = @form end specify "should render the error messages" do <SOMETHING>.should_receive(:error_messages_for).with

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 14:37 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> Let's take a step back from from the implementation. What is a driver >> for a virtio PCI device (i.e. a PCI device with vendor 0x1af4) >> supposed to do on ppc64? > > Today, it's supposed to send

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 14:37 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> Let's take a step back from from the implementation. What is a driver >> for a virtio PCI device (i.e. a PCI device with vendor 0x1af4) >> supposed to do on ppc64? > > Today, it's supposed to send

...h made you fail to Cc the author of the patch that caused it (me). That also made you miss the fact that you're only fixing half the problem, namely you failed to touch arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_32.c which has identical code in. Thirdly you used checkpatch and moved muck about creating a trainwreck of a patch. Anyway, you can use __maybe_unused on a label, I'm not sure which I prefer, this way you jump into the previous case block and use fall-through, while with the variant I did you jump into the right case. Its a shame you cannot jump to the default label itself.

...our elaborate NMI setup, etc..). There is no way I can see SNP-#VC 'work'. The best I can come up with is 'mostly', but do you like your bridges/dikes/etc.. to be mostly ok? Or do you want a guarantee they'll actually work? I'll keep repeating this, x86_64 exceptions are a trainwreck, and IST in specific is utter crap.

...tter because the kernel will not leave the > currently running handler anymore. You only have that guarantee when any SNP #VC from kernel is an automatic panic. But in that case, what's the point of having the recursion count? > > I'll keep repeating this, x86_64 exceptions are a trainwreck, and IST in > > specific is utter crap. > > I agree, but don't forget the most prominent underlying reason for IST: > The SYSCALL gap. If SYSCALL would switch stacks most of those issues > would not exist. IST would still be needed because there are no task > gates in x86-...

...tp uses just the address string in the form of "full address with quotes stripped from local part but otherwise not decoded" and nothing else throughout, which touches on quite a bit of code. It makes it indeterminate and not always possible to reassemble the original, it's a bit of a trainwreck. The sanest option to me seems to me to be to store a decoded local part and domain in addition to the detail in mail_recipient, and keeping a now properly rfc822 encoded address in sync with it. However, this would cause a deviation from existing behaviour for the full original user (the quotes w...

...t; Not with existing guests which cannot be changed. Existing distros are > out with those drivers. If we add a backward compatibility mechanism, > then we could add something yes, provided we can segregate virtio onto a > dedicated host bridge (which can be a problem with the libvirt > trainwreck...) Ugh. So here's an ugly proposal: Step 1: Make virtio-pci use the DMA API only on x86. This will at least fix Xen and people experimenting with virtio hardware on x86, and it won't break anything, since there are no emulated IOMMUs on x86. Step 2: Update the virtio spec. Virtio 1.0...

On 26/10/2017 18:38, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > Am 26.10.2017 um 12:20 schrieb David Zambonini: >> >> There seems to be a bug with RFC822 processing in ltmp proxying that >> doesn't >> quote local parts that, for example, contain spaces. > > Newer related RFCs are RFC 5321 and 5322. Typo, meant to say RFC2822, which they still supercede, not that the

The patch_default label is only used from within case PARAVIRT_PATCH(pv_lock_ops.queued_spin_unlock) and case PARAVIRT_PATCH(pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted) i.e. when #if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS) is true. Therefore no code jumps to this label in case CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS is not defined and label should be removed in that case. Moving #endif directive just after that label fixes the

The patch_default label is only used from within case PARAVIRT_PATCH(pv_lock_ops.queued_spin_unlock) and case PARAVIRT_PATCH(pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted) i.e. when #if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS) is true. Therefore no code jumps to this label in case CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS is not defined and label should be removed in that case. Moving #endif directive just after that label fixes the