similar to: Post-firewall hook to insert custom rules?

On 8/17/20 5:15 AM, Gunnar Niels wrote: > Hello, I have a set of iptables rules that I need to insert *after* libvirt > has set up all of its firewall rules. Is there a hook that I can tap > into in > order to run something like a custom script to make sure this happens? > Any ideas? > > -GN > You should be able to use a libvirt network hook script to do this:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, maybe this is an old fart, but I cant get it to work. I am running libvirt on a laptop, where a dnsmasq is already running to delegate dns info for my local (not-public) network. My resolv.conf (on the host) lists the system-dnsmasq as first server. I had to set the listen-adress for the system-dnsmasq to 127.0.0.1 and set

Hi, I wan?t to add iptables rules between existing rules and the rules created by libvirt (forward type=nat). I did try the hook /etc/libvirt/hooks/network network_name start begin - and /etc/libvirt/hooks/network network_name started begin - It seems like the libvirt iptables rules are already inserted when this hook is executed. Simply use ?I instead of ?A does not work either

I'm trying to setup two CentOS7 systems with automatic security updates to run as my kubernetes nodes. I've also centralized all my outgoing mail through my mailgun service, so I've been using the cli tool "mailx", which I have configured with my credentials. Coming from Fedora32 and CentOS7, dnf-automatic had a helpful emission target that was "email_command". By

Le 18/08/2020 ? 03:00, Gunnar Niels a ?crit?: > I'm asking where the results of the yum-cron job are actually written to so > I can see what it did. Well, that's your answer. Here's the content of an email sent by Yum-Cron. So you everything that happened under the hood: The following updates will be applied on nestor.microlinux.lan:

Any easy way to do this as some kind of overlay, so they GN files wouldn't live in the LLVM repository, but in a separate one? (this might avoid some of the community discussion - though would perhaps still likely have the issue I see as most significant: With a sufficient number of developers using GN, the rate of build breaks due to those developers missing CMake file updates might rise to

The value in having them somewhere in-tree is that it's easier for people collaborate on these files, and it's way lower setup overhead if someone wants to try it out. If people prefer llvm/util over llvm/experimental, that's fine with me. There would only be a single directory that will contain build files for all of llvm, clang, lld, etc. The build files would be in

Awesome. I'm happy with moving the .rst file into that directory and not have it on the public website. I'll try to make a patch that lands enough scaffolding to build `not` in the next few days, and then I'll land the other build files I have through the regular build process after that. Unless someone feels strongly, I'll go with Justin's suggestion of llvm/utils/gn/... On

If I read this correctly, there isn't much opposition to landing the gn files as long as it's very clear that regular devs aren't supposed to update them and that it's clear that they're experimental The main concerns I've heard so far: - Having two build systems is confusing. I can see this, but I think putting the gn files below llvm/experimental/gn (instead of right

Dear people, I'm trying to do some analysis of a data using the models by Royle & Donazio in their fantastic book, particular the following function: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/pubanalysis/roylebook/panel4pt1.fn that applied to my data and in the console is as follows: > `desman.y` <- structure(c(3L,4L,3L,2L,1L), .Names = c("1", "2", "3",

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:22 AM Vedant Kumar via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now. >> I'm not, I just put up with it :) > ...

>>>>> Ivan Krylov via R-help >>>>> on Fri, 9 Aug 2024 15:23:58 +0300 writes: > ? Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:43:23 +0530 > Anupam Tyagi <anuptyagi at gmail.com> ?????: >> In open.connection(con, "rb") : >> URL >>

Thanks for the info Rui. Transitioning from llvm 5.0 to llvm 7.0 will take some time due to the nature/process of the production environment. Is it ok to use lld 7.0 with llvm 5.0? On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:47 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Looks like Ubuntu 12 was released in 2012, and the most recent version of > LLVM is LLVM 8.0.0. > > LLVM 5.0 is pretty old,

Hi All, This test is on a ubuntu 12 box. Can anyone please point me what revision/commit-id of lld fixed this issue which was atleast in llvm 5.0. . ├── build.sh ├── main.c ├── shared │ └── sh.c └── static └── st.c [[ build.sh ]] #!/bin/sh CC="${TOOLCHAIN}/bin/clang" AR="${TOOLCHAIN}/bin/llvm-ar" CFLAGS="-g -O" LDFLAGS="-fuse-ld=lld" rm

gReetings: I apologize for the non-programming language. I found what seems to be a strange behavior of plot(). The code follows: #_____________________________ N=3030; gn=.04; tn=1:100 n=N/(1+(N-1)*exp(-gn*tn)) N=n*(1-exp(-gn*tn))/(1-n*exp(-gn*tn)) plot(N) #strange plot N N=rep(3030, 100) plot(N) #behaves as expected ________________________________ Windows XP, R 2.4.0. or 2.4.1 Thanks,

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL:

Hi, I need to get an overview over the memory/speed requirements for speex. We want to investigate whether we can implement on a target processor with limited resources. The target processor is a 16 bit fixed pint DSP with a single ALU and MAC. It runs at 60 MHz and has a total of 16 Kbytes RAM from which other processing also will eat. What we would like to implement is a speex encoder and

vitalybuka, sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn is _still_ on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console . Can we please get it removed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:07 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D63909 landed. Maybe it needs a master restart > to have an effect? > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:03 PM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: >

Why is there a public GN buildbot that sends emails and IRC notifications? That isn't what was agreed upon. Either un-GM it, or silence it. Roman. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:05 AM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: >

Hi, I am trying to convert the following NLMIXED code to NLME, but am running into problems concerning 'Singularity in backsolve'. As I am new to R/S-Plus, I thought I may be missing something in the NLME code. NLMIXED *********** proc nlmixed data=kidney.kidney; parms delta=0.03 gamma=1.1 b1=-0.003 b2=-1.2 b3=0.09 b4=0.35 b5=-1.43 varu=0.5; eta=b1*age+b2*sex+b3*gn+b4*an+b5*pkn+u;