similar to: Fwd: memory leak

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 500 matches similar to: "Fwd: memory leak"

2014 Jun 12
1
memory leak with vlan tagged traffic in switch mode
Hi, has anybody a running setup with 2 or more tinc daemons in switch mode which transport 8021q tagged traffic? I am trying to connect two segments with about 4 x 1000 mac addresses (distributed on different vlans). I am always running out of memory on one side. This happens only on the side where the arp requests come from. Currently there is no unicast traffic between the sides; only
2014 Jun 06
0
memory leak
Hi, I am running tinc on alpine linux 2.7.8 in 2 seperate environments. The first environment is running for about a month without any problems. The second environment causes some trouble. It looks like a memory leak on the client side. tincd.conf: ConnectTo=ServerHost Device=/dev/net/tun Mode=switch Name=ClientHost PMTUDiscovery = yes DeviceType=tap PriorityInheritance = yes
2009 Dec 16
0
strange flock issues with glusterfs 3.0.0
Hi, FYI: we had glusterfs up and running with 2.0.8 and it worked fine. we decided to upgrade to 3.0.0 and found out, that with linux 2.6.31.7 and glusterfs 3.0.0 and the kernel fuse module, the flock() does not seem to work, i.e. apache2 php session files distributed via glusterfs 3.0.0 make apache2 hang on LOCK_EX we reverted back to 2.0.8 and installed glusterfs-fuse 2.7.4 and everything is
2011 Oct 18
2
Non-linear maximization function in R
Hello, # Full disclosure. I am not sure if my problem is a bug(s) in the code, or a fundamental misunderstanding on my part about what I am trying to do with these statistics. I am not familiar with maximum likelihood tests. # I currently have two vectors Aequipecten<-c(0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
2012 Dec 17
0
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
Maybe we can have two versions of the intrinsic function, "ordered" and "unordered", just like fcmp has [1]. Would that work ? [1] - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fcmp-instruction On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com]
2013 Sep 09
0
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
Hi Kevin, Thanks for working on this. We usually try really hard to avoid adding new types such as x86mmx. I don’t know the memory-protection instruction set at all but I imagine that you are not expecting other LLVM optimizations to interact with them right ? (it looks that way from this example[1]). If you are not accessing the individual components then you can use i128, or even <2 x
2013 Jan 19
2
PriorityInheritance doesn't work (tinc 1.0.19)
Hello! I'd like to use PriorityInheritance option, despite it is still experimental. (Why it could be experimental, when it looks quite simple feature, no?) But this option doesn't change the TOS field of outgoing UDP packet. I just do tcpdump on outgoing interface from vty1: $ sudo tcpdump -vni eth0 udp dst port 655 And from vty2 I do ping with setting of tos field to EF(0xb8). $
2013 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
Hi Kevin, Can you explain what kind of abstraction/support do you plan to implement over the MP instructions ? I imagine that you plan to add a few intrinsics, right ? I imagine that you don’t need the register allocator to allocate the BND registers or anything fancy like that. In that case the registers can be an immediate in the intrinsic. Maybe you can start by presenting the kind of
2012 Dec 17
3
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: >This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. Yes, that's the obvious alternative. I don't think we have any strong opinion either way, and fcmp/select is certainly easier to implement. -- Kevin Schoedel, Software Developer,
2012 Dec 17
2
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > What does the community think? > > It seems inevitable. For the floating point version, please make it very clear > what the behavior of max(-0,+0) and related cases are. The following is our current proposal for llvm.fmax/fmin.*: [1] If exactly one argument is a NaN, the intrinsic returns the other argument.
2009 Feb 20
1
3.73 crashes FreeDOS in VMWare - 3.72 works fine
With the same configuration an ISOLINUX CD which boots a FreeDOS Floppy image via MEMDISK Syslinux-3.73 crashes in VMWare and also on several newer boxes just after the kernel loading with "invalid OPCODE ...". Same CD with Syslinux-3.72 is working fine. Build environment for 3.72 was gcc-4.3.2 for 3.73 gcc-4.3.3 - any idea what can cause the troubles? --
2012 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: change BoundsChecking.cpp to use address-based tests
Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte
2013 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
Hi Kevin, We're also interested in support for fat pointers in LLVM/clang and it would be nice to have some general infrastructure for them (we currently have a load of hacks). There are a lot of research architectures with fat pointers, and MPX is likely to be just the first of many to start hitting real silicon soon. There are a few properties that we'd ideally want to represent in
2012 Dec 04
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: change BoundsChecking.cpp to use address-based tests
Nuno, Inspired by this email thread, I spent a bit of time today looking through the implementation of BoundsChecking::instrument(..). Based on my reading of prior work, it should be possible to do these checks in two comparisons, or possibly even one if the right assumptions could be made. Could you provide a bit of background of the expected domains of Size and Offset? In particular,
2012 Dec 17
0
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:50 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > The intrinsics are not equivalent to an fcmp/select sequence. This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2013 Sep 10
2
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > We're also interested in support for fat pointers in LLVM/clang and it > would be nice to have some general infrastructure for them (we currently > have a load of hacks). There are a lot of research architectures with fat > pointers, and MPX is likely to be just
2013 Feb 13
2
[LLVMdev] TargetSpec
This is about the target specification proposal described in http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TargetSpec.txt At the end of the year I spent a while on this, partly as a foot-wetting exercise for parts of LLVM I wouldn't otherwise look at. I did a partial implementation; enough to understand most of the issues (I hope) and get a clear idea of what would need to be done to phase it in. I
2017 Sep 02
2
[Announcement] Tinc versions 1.0.32 and 1.1pre15 released
With pleasure we announce the release of tinc versions 1.0.32 and 1.1pre15. Here is a summary of the changes in tinc 1.0.32: * Fix segmentation fault when using Cipher = none. * Fix Proxy = exec. * Support PriorityInheritance for IPv6 packets. * Fixes for Solaris tun/tap support. * Bind outgoing TCP sockets when ListenAddress is used. Thanks to Vittorio Gambaletta for his contribution to this
2017 Sep 02
2
[Announcement] Tinc versions 1.0.32 and 1.1pre15 released
With pleasure we announce the release of tinc versions 1.0.32 and 1.1pre15. Here is a summary of the changes in tinc 1.0.32: * Fix segmentation fault when using Cipher = none. * Fix Proxy = exec. * Support PriorityInheritance for IPv6 packets. * Fixes for Solaris tun/tap support. * Bind outgoing TCP sockets when ListenAddress is used. Thanks to Vittorio Gambaletta for his contribution to this
2013 Sep 09
2
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
Hi, On Monday, September 09, 2013 4:20 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: > Thanks for working on this. We usually try really hard to avoid adding new > types such as x86mmx. I don't know the memory-protection instruction set at > all but I imagine that you are not expecting other LLVM optimizations to > interact with them right ? (it looks that way from this