On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:59:44AM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:13:14PM +0100, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 04:44:57PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 07:02:54PM +0000, corvid wrote:
bf wrote:
Because blackhole(4) is a common security measure, and because this problem did not exist under the previous dpi framework, it must be considered a regression, even if, in hindsight, it is to be "expected".
I finally looked back to refresh my memory on why we switched to inet sockets: Minix. If we do return to Unix sockets eventually, what is the thinking on what we would do for Minix?
At some point in time Minix 3 will have to implement UDS. In the meanwhile they can use the version with inet sockets.
What shall we do about this TCP blackhole issue? Should we try to switch back to UDS before release?
Sorry for the delayed answer Johannes (I was out of the city).
IMO, UDS before the release is too risky. It will need lots of testing time.
Just came to the same conclusion ...
I believe we may choose the solution bf has found to work better as workaround, make a patch with it and release. A few times in the past I rushed a "better" solution into an rc, only to learn not to do it! :)
What patch exactly would you propose? I see * increasing dpid_idle_timeout * adding a linger variable * and a shell wrapper to start dillo
With regard to UDS, it can be scheduled into the repo shortly after the release; Thereafter users can help us polish it from there.
ok. Cheers, Johannes