similar to: Re: RedHat 5.X Security Book

I'd like to report a problem I found with the OpenSSH client talking to the SSH 2.3.0 server. client: i686-pc-linux (Debian 2.2, kernel 2.2.18pre19, glibc-2.1.3), SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_2.3.0p1 (built by me from source, but the same problem occurs with ssh_2.2.0p1-1.1 as shipped with Debian 2.2). server: sparc-sun-solaris2.7, SSH-2.0-2.3.0 SSH Secure Shell (non-commercial) Problem: some time

Here's someone that felt the need to put something better together. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 04:22:15 -0400 From: Richard Thomas <rthomas@sy.net> To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG Subject: Slackware Shadow Insecurity Discovered by Ted Hickman: Recently I noticed something rather "insecure" about the slackware 3.4 /bin/login (and probably other

Marek Michalkiewicz <marekm@I17LINUXB.ISTS.PWR.WROC.PL> wrote: : It seems that most of the RedHat 5.3.12 security patches are in the : standard 5.4.17, except for the patch below. Also, there are more : (different) fixes in 5.4.18 (check h_length against sizeof(sin_addr) : in inet/rcmd.c and inet/rexec.c). : + { : +

I don't know if this is RedHat 5.1 specific, but be aware that the version of portmap distributed is the enhanced (Wietse Venema) version. That's great, except for two things. The first is documented, but easy to overlook: "In order to avoid deadlocks, the portmap program does not attempt to look up the remote host name or user name...The upshot of all this is that only network

Thanks Anton and Krzysztof! Here is the dump using the -debug flag. At this point I am not making much sense of this, would it be too much to ask if one of you could walk me through one of these lines? One thing that I didn't point out is that I never defined any separate floating point registers, not sure if this will pose any issue? Thanks again for your time! Jeff jeff at

Hi, it seems the 2.5.0p1 announcement on www.openssh.com went out a little bit too early ;). Just curious, why 2.4 was skipped? I don't believe this is just to have a higher version number than the competition ;). I see 2.5.0 is there, but no 2.5.0p1 yet even on ftp.openbsd.org itself. Looking at the CVS tree, I see the two bugs I reported to this list some time ago (with no response) are

Hi Krzysztof, Sure, please see below. DAG.dump.() before and after, annotated with what I believe the DAG means. I've spent some time debugging the method but it's proving difficult to determine where the logic is misfiring. Disabling the entire combine causes a lot of failing x86-64 tests - I may have to learn an upstream vector ISA to make progress on this. Thank you >From your

Hi, I am having issues running a new backend that I created for a new architecture. I suspect these errors may have something to do with how I have the string setup in LLVMTargetMachine() below? Also - It would be great if someone could point me to a document that describes some of these error messages? For example what does t26 ..t4 mean? Thanks in advance for taking your valuable time to help

Running system: SuSE 7.2 (kernel 2.2.4) & samba-3.0.0beta1. There is coexisting Win(Millennium) system at the server (reason: many win partitions MUST be directly available at the central unit under windows after rebooting to windows). People connect their laptops (with small HD and Win2k SP2) to central unit and samba offers shares with Linux accounts. However, there are many win

int %nlz10(uint %param.x) { %.t3 = shr uint %param.x, ubyte 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t4 = or uint %.t3, %param.x ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t7 = shr uint %.t4, ubyte 2 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t8 = or uint %.t7, %.t4 ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t11 = shr uint %.t8, ubyte 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1]

Here's our testcase: #include <stdio.h> struct flags { unsigned frog: 1; unsigned foo : 1; unsigned bar : 1; unsigned bat : 1; unsigned baz : 1; unsigned bam : 1; }; int main() { struct flags flags; flags.bar = 1; flags.foo = 1; if (flags.foo == 1) { printf("Pass\n"); return 0; } else {

On 12/21/2016 4:45 PM, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev wrote: > Here's our testcase: > > #include <stdio.h> > > struct flags { > unsigned frog: 1; > unsigned foo : 1; > unsigned bar : 1; > unsigned bat : 1; > unsigned baz : 1; > unsigned bam : 1; > }; > > int main() { > struct flags flags; > flags.bar = 1; >

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13692 Summary: Crash with floating point exception from Firefox Product: swfdec Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://www.konar.ict.pwr.wroc.pl/zawody/flash.html OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

Hi All, I have a question about splitting 'EXTRACT_VECTOR_ELT' with 'v2i1'. I have a llvm IR code snippet as following: llvm IR code snippet: for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.cond %i.022 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.cond ] %0 = icmp ne <2 x i32> %vecinit1, <i32 0, i32 -23> %1 = extractelement <2 x i1>

Hello. I'm writing a back end for a RISC processor (similar to BPF) with a large SIMD unit. I tried in the last days to make llc compile to SIMD code the following LLVM program: define i32 @foo(i32* %A, i32* %B, i32* %C, i32 %N) #0 { entry: ;vector.body: ; preds = %vector.body, %vector.body.preheader.split.split %0 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 0 ; i64 %index ; Alex: I

> I’ve seen the same problem, but didn’t find solution back then. > I can give a hint that it is related to a thread local storage (notice TLS in the name). > > The same result can be reproduced by this simple program: > > thread_local int x = 0; > int main() { > return 0; > } > >When compiled into IR it produces similar error: > >LLVM ERROR:

On 10/20/2016 9:28 AM, Cameron McInally via llvm-dev wrote: > I should have attached the generated asm to save some trouble. > Apologies for that and attaching now... > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Cameron McInally > <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

I have the following selection DAG: SelectionDAG has 9 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t16: i32,ch = load<LD1[%ptr](tbaa=<0x10023c9f448>), anyext from i8> t0, t2, undef:i64 t15: v16i8 = BUILD_VECTOR t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16, t16 t11: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:v16i8 %V2, t15

> extends the elements to 8bit and stores them on stack. Store is responsible for zero-extend. This is the policy... - Elena -----Original Message----- From: jingu at codeplay.com [mailto:jingu at codeplay.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 17:45 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; daniel_l_sanders at apple.com Subject: Re: Question

I see we're missing an isel pattern for add producing carry and doing a memory RMW. I'm going to see if adding that helps anything. ~Craig On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Nirav Davé via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Yes. I'm seeing that as well. Not clear what's going on. > > In any case it looks to be unrelated to the alias analysis so barring