similar to: if_bfe and > 1 GB of ram is now fixed

Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: > > >>Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its >>various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? >> >>Scott > > > I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related > problems, so there is no need for a reversion.

In addition to the network drivers Luoqi provided PAE patches for, I have also backported -current's if_xl driver; it is available at: http://www.silby.com/pae/ Even if you're not running Luoqi's PAE patch, I'd be interested in hearing how it works for you. Thanks, Mike "Silby" Silbersack

As promised, the updated if_xl with full busdma support / other improvements has been MFC'd to 4.8-stable. While I have put this driver through extensive testing, it is possible that there may be bugs which are either present in the -current version or that I added in the MFC process. So, if you cvsup to -stable anytime in the future and notice problems with if_xl, please tell me ASAP!

Here's my proposed patch to change RST handling so that ESTABLISHED connections are subject to strict RST checking, but connections in other states are only subject to the "within the window" check. Part 2 of the patch is simply a patch to netstat so that it displays the statistic. As expected, it's very straightforward, the only real question is what to call the statistic...

Thanks to Tor Egge, the VM problems introduced during the PAE import have now been fixed. The problem occured because of changes in locking between 4.x and 5.x which were not obvious. Of course, there still could be other bugs hanging around the 4.x tree, and we'd like to hear about them. (Crashdumps provided by Mike Tancsa and others helped greatly in tracking down this problem.) If

As others have noted, Tor's patch appears to be a total solution to the recent instability the PAE patch introduced. So, if you're experiencing panics with a recent kernel, or are in a position to stress a machine, please cvsup and give it a test! Thanks, Mike "Silby" Silbersack ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:39:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tor Egge

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ============================================================================= FreeBSD-SA-02:26.accept Security Advisory The FreeBSD Project Topic: Remote denial-of-service when using accept filters Category: core Module: kernel Announced:

What works: - Samba4 Server migrated from Samba3 data. - adding a 2008_R2 DC. - Replication sofar as I could monitor. - internal DNS Server on Samba. What fails: Automatic DNS Updates are not working, althought "allow dns updates = true" in smb.conf is set - which seems to enable secure AND unsecure updates. Manual adding an Record works on both machines, and it gets replicated on

In http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402260743.IAA18903 it seems RELENG_4 is vulnerable. Is there any work around to a system that has to have ports open ? Version: 1 2/18/2004@03:47:29 GMT >Initial report > <<https://ialert.idefense.com/KODetails.jhtml?irId=207650>https://ialert.idefense.com/KODetails.jhtml?irId=207650; >ID#207650: >FreeBSD Memory Buffer

Dear list, A few days ago one of my machines were attacked by a DDoS-attack using UDP on random ports.. When I later on analyzed the logs, I found this in my dmesg: xl0: initialization of the rx ring failed (55) xl0: initialization of the rx ring failed (55) xl0: initialization of the rx ring failed (55) I tried to find out on google what it ment, but without any luck. What does that mean and

Forwarded message: > From full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com Wed Apr 21 11:49:12 2004 > To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com > From: Darren Bounds <dbounds@intrusense.com> > Subject: [Full-Disclosure] IETF Draft - Fix for TCP vulnerability > Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:19:58 -0400 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > >

hi is there any way to build 4.8 release with this fstack protection? or atleast some ports is there any good info on this? the only page i found was that ibm page but it seemed outdated. //martin

Hi, folks @ freebsd-security. First, I am not sure if this is apropriate topic for that list, so sorry, if it is not. Some time ago I have read rfc1948 (protection from blind TCP spoofing) and became interested in the way how it is implemented in FreeBSD. After some googling (BTW if you like Google you might be interested in this: http://register.spectator.ru/img/bart.gif ), I found this:

Hi everybody. I have a xen full virtualized guest running with 32 bit WIN 2003 Enterprise edition with 8 GB RAM assigned to it, but when the Virtual Machine starts only recognize 3,75 GB. I Have edit boot.ini with /PAE switch but still don't work. In addition,when i set pae value = 1 in the guest config file, the system gave me a blue screen after the windows splash screen. Kind regards

Hello, I have a centos 5.2 core 2 duo 3.0 GHZ with 2 GB ram which is working as a Virtual machine. i've just upgraded the hosting physical server from 32 GB to 64 GB of ram. which in turn, would require me to upgrade the VM to 8 GB. this is a 32 bit centos installation, would the system recognize and use the 8 GB? the option of using a 64 bit centos isnt possible. So i'm turning to you

we have CENTOS 4.7 (X86) on DELL server, I already put 32 GB RAM on it. I can use "top" or "free" to check memory and it did show 32 GB. I check REDHAT site and found it say: The "SMP" kernel supports a maximum of 16GB of main memory. Systems with more than 16GB of main memory use the "Hugemem" kernel. I use "uname -r" to check kernel and it

Hi, I want to use xen 3.1 on debian 4.0 (etch) in order to have Win XP, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD as guest os. Could you tell me if tell following hardware will fit fore this purpose (system is used for development)? Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 4 GB RAM, 4x WD 1600AAJS (RAID 0+1), ASUS EN7600 Top Silent/HTD It would also be interessting for me if it will sufficent work (preformance) if I do

I would like confirm one thing. Based on what I saw Redhat document before, look like CENTOS 5 (X86, 32 bits) only support 16 GB RAM. Is this correct? Thanks.

Hi! Today I encountered data corruption on two zfs pools due to a RAM failure in my OI box running on a dell T710. My rpool now looks like this (after reboot): pool: rpool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire

> > > we have CENTOS 4.7 (X86) on DELL server, I already put 32 GB RAM on it. I can use "top" or "free" to check memory and it did show 32 GB. > > I check REDHAT site and found it say: > > The "SMP" kernel supports a maximum of 16GB of main memory. Systems with more than 16GB of main memory use the "Hugemem" kernel. > > I use