similar to: Am I opening myself to some security vulnerability if I unprotect the Controller classes'' redirect methods?

First public release of Production Log Analyzer! Download it at: http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=586 The Production Analyzer lets you find out which pages on your site are dragging you down. pl_analyze requires the use of SyslogLogger (included) because the default Logger doesn''t give any way to associate lines logged to a request. SyslogLogger gives you many other

Hi, I think this has already been asked on the list, but I can''t seem to be able to find it again: currently, active record does some weird thing with its sql logs i.e.: [4;33mSQL (0.000000) [1;37mPRAGMA table_info(map_locations) how do I remove the "[4;35m" thx Jean

Hello, Seeing a strange thing with dovecot 1.0 b7 pop3. If a user gets a particular _very_ short spam message (not sure what virus makes these..), with NO Subject and NO To: headers and NO body, (example available upon request), the user is unable to download the mail. The log entry is: May 10 10:51:35 mail dovecot: POP3(user): Disconnected top=0/0, retr=1/1344, del=0/75, size=16383381

I have an *Ubuntu 16.04* mail server with postfix/spamassassin/*dovecot-2.2.2**2* with virtual mailboxes in maildir format. The whole process is working excellently since a year. Spams are marked with "*****SPAM*****" in subject and with "X-Spam-Flag: YES" in email header. I tried now to add sieve to dovecot to move the SPAM messages into the Junk folder without any

Hi all, I need to (quickly!grrr) update IP addresses for which a given machine will answer. I did this: /sbin/ifconfig eth0:0 xx.xx.xx.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:1 xx.xx.xx.11 netmask 255.255.255.0 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:2 xx.xx.xx.30 netmask 255.255.255.0 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:3 xx.xx.xx.31 netmask 255.255.255.0 /sbin/ifconfig eth0:4 xx.xx.xx.13 netmask 255.255.255.0

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:29:04 PM CET hw wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting messages like > > > res_srtp.c:395 ast_srtp_unprotect: SRTP unprotect failed with replay check > failed (index too old), retrying == SRTP unprotect failed on SSRC 576693764 > because of authentication failure 10 == SRTP unprotect failed on SSRC > 576693764 because of authentication failure

Dear R experts, In all R functions written in C one must unprotect result before returning them: { ... UNPROTECT(1) /* unprotecting `ans' */ return ans; } Why does one shure that memory occupied by `ans' won't be used by R immediately after unprotecting? Ok, is the next construction also absolutely safe? { ... UNPROTECT(1) /* unprotecting

Hi, I'm getting messages like res_srtp.c:395 ast_srtp_unprotect: SRTP unprotect failed with replay check failed (index too old), retrying == SRTP unprotect failed on SSRC 576693764 because of authentication failure 10 == SRTP unprotect failed on SSRC 576693764 because of authentication failure 160 [...] ... after a couple minutes during voice calls after which the connection is being

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:35 AM hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:29:04 PM CET hw wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm getting messages like > > > > > > res_srtp.c:395 ast_srtp_unprotect: SRTP unprotect failed with replay > check > > failed (index too old), retrying == SRTP unprotect failed on SSRC > 576693764 > >

Consider the C (or C++) code called from the .Call interface: SEXP foo() { SEXP *p = PROTECT(allocVector(REALSXP, 10)); ... UNPROTECT(1); return p; } Why is there no danger that the allocated memory will be garbage collected after the UNPROTECT, but before the return of p? I have used code like this for some time and have never had a problem, but I'm not sure if/why it is guaranteed

Hi, Im currently trying to debug a 'error in unprotect: stack imbalance' problem and I am curious about two basic questions on the use of PROTECT and UNPROTECT, which I could not figure out: - which objects have to be protected, namely, if the code is something like: SEXP fun, e; /* get the expression e ... */ fun = eval(e, R_GlobalEnv); /* or like this?: PROTECT(fun = eval(e,

Hi, I'm troubleshooting some native code on Windows that very occationally (and semi-randomly) crashes R. Already looked at "everything", I just want to double check that it is safe to UNPROTECT() allocated variables as soon as they are assigned to, say, a PROTECTed list. >From (R v2.3.0) Section 5.7.1 "Handling the effects of garbage collection" in "Writing R

As I mentioned in my previous message about speeding up evalList, I've been looking at ways to speed up the R interpreter. One sees in the code many, many calls of PROTECT, UNPROTECT, and related functions, so that seems like an obvious target for optimization. Indeed, I've found that one can speed up the interpreter by about 10% by just changing these. The functions are actually macros

I''d like to use :through to create a web of associations like: class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :child_things, :through => :thing_thing has_many :parent_things, :through => :thing_thing, :some_other_option? end class ThingThing < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :thing belongs_to :child_thing, :class_name => ''Thing'', :foreign_key =>

Hello! Ater several successful SRTP-enabled calls with SRTP set to Mandatory, asterisk starts to give the following warnings in Log: WARNING[13714] res_srtp.c: SRTP unprotect: authentication failure (continiously) and client hears no sound. After i restart the client program it works fine again for a while. Then the same warning again. Asterisk 1.8.1.1, RealTime engine, sip peer has

Hi, This does not seem to be covered anywhere. Since base class extends ActiveRecord with a table that has fields for all heirs, would that mean that any heir class can access any of those attributes, including ones that belong to other heirs? Or I am missing something? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hello, this is my first wine-time, and a lot of winprograms run "out of the box" Great! But there is a little DOS-program which does not run. Where can I look for the error? Thanks for any hint. geo@toso:~> wine "c:\Program Files\saft\saft.exe" Warning: unprotecting the first 64KB of memory to allow real-mode calls. NULL pointer accesses will no longer be caught.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1909 Summary: "WARNING: UNPROTECTED PRIVATE KEY FILE!" warning needs an actionable step Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P2 Component: ssh

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1909 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |djm at mindrot.org Resolution|---

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1909 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #2 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Set all RESOLVED bugs to CLOSED with release