01:20:41 <goonmorning> I found that my vnet jails can have access to the internet just a short moment I add external interface into the bridge of vnet jails. What could be the issue?
01:21:41 <goonmorning> I am trying to give them all internet access
01:30:32 <goonmorning> I can see my nat working for the short moment only
01:32:08 <goonmorning> more precisely, it allowed first 20 pings
01:42:31 <goonmorning> should I just make a weirdly working vnet jails system whose bridge is unplugged and unplugged every some seconds
01:53:35 <ivy> i wonder what is going on here: https://www.le-fay.org/tmp/30d/shutdown.txt - i've seen this on a lot of systems, random processes get SIGSEGV during shutdown for no apparently reason, it feels like a bug
02:12:15 <kevans> ivy: it sounds familiar, but I'm trying to remember why
02:13:21 <ivy> kevans: oh god are you going to make me fix another one of your bugs
02:14:30 <kevans> not my bug :-p
02:20:27 <kevans> for some reason I thought we migrated to cpu 0 and went single thread before that point in shutdown/reboot, but I seem to be hallucinating that
02:20:57 <ivy> this is (still) under Xen fwiw and i know Xen is a bit weird
02:21:07 <ivy> but i'm sure i've seen it on native amd64 system
02:57:14 <ivy> kevans: there may be something else going on here (with wg), the system boots with ipv6-only kernel but won't authenticate kerberos clients over the wireguard tunnel even though BGP seems to come up okay...
02:57:22 <ivy> i suspect this might be a configuration issue though
02:57:59 <xxy> i install node.js from ports according tutorial: https://docs.vultr.com/how-to-install-node-js-and-npm-on-freebsd-14-0, then in "make install" stage, it prompt error"https://paste.centos.org/view/3e57ce96", should i build a empty file with name "metadir.node22"?
02:58:39 <xxy> or there are other methods to fix this ?
02:58:50 <kevans> ivy: hmm, that's weird
02:59:42 <ivy> i may actually sit down and debug this now because this shouldn't be happening
03:02:45 <ivy> oh hah
03:02:47 <ivy> remote-control:
03:02:48 <ivy>         control-enable: yes
03:02:48 <ivy>         control-interface: 127.0.0.1
03:02:49 <ivy>         control-interface: ::1
03:02:58 <ivy> apparently this makes unbound refuse to start
03:05:38 <goonmorning> my vnets can have internet access until I get a message: kernel: arp: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx is using my IP address 10.xx.xx.1 on bridgefoo
03:06:37 <goonmorning> where might have been configured funny here?
03:07:05 <jauntyd> two or more machines are using the same IP address probably
03:10:27 <goonmorning> hmmm
03:11:25 <rwp> How are you assigning addresses to the jails behind the NAT?
03:18:13 <goonmorning> https://paste.debian.net/plain/1332040
03:23:51 <goonmorning> I was given the second nic with the private ip 10.0.48.1 for the instance
03:24:08 <goonmorning> sorry it is 10.0.48.10
03:28:03 <jauntyd> what is the first NICs IP?
03:28:26 <goonmorning> 10.0.12.155 and 10.0.14.35
03:28:39 <goonmorning> i need two ips for fib0
03:28:54 <jauntyd> is this at a service you're renting?
03:29:07 <goonmorning> aws
03:30:00 <jauntyd> oh
03:30:03 <goonmorning> si
03:31:18 <jauntyd> i'm going to step aside because idk if it is smart to change the bridge or router
03:31:27 <jauntyd> sorry i couldn't help more
03:33:37 <goonmorning> please enlighten me in both scenarios
03:37:01 <jauntyd> i would say the safe option is to change the bridge ip
03:38:00 <jauntyd> hmm
03:38:32 <goonmorning> I am a veezual learner. Can you show me some example?
03:39:52 <jauntyd> https://paste.debian.net/1332042/
03:44:04 <jauntyd> you can restart networking with reboot: "service netif restart && service routing restart"
03:44:50 <jauntyd> without*
03:52:40 <jauntyd> goonmorning: are you alive?
03:52:49 <goonmorning> yes and
03:53:03 <jauntyd> >.<
03:57:22 <goonmorning> hmm
04:01:42 <jauntyd> did anything blow up?
04:04:01 <goonmorning> it didn't work. Unfortunately didn't blow neither up.
04:07:19 <goonmorning> I feel I have skipped too many pages of books
04:15:23 <goonmorning> jauntyd it works!
04:15:27 <goonmorning> thanks you
04:15:35 <jauntyd> I'm going to find a paper bag
04:15:39 <jauntyd> you're welcome
04:19:32 <goonmorning> I don't need to go back to read. I am so happy
04:20:31 <jauntyd> is this your first experience with FreeBSD?
04:22:49 <radhitya> FreeBSD srv 14.0-RELEASE-p6 FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE-p6
04:23:00 <radhitya> \o/ i'm happy with freebsd
04:23:27 <radhitya> i'm currently running email and shared computer with that
04:23:27 <jauntyd> excellent!
04:23:34 <radhitya> `shell`
04:23:36 <radhitya> i mean that
04:23:40 <radhitya> thank you, jauntyd
04:23:44 <jauntyd> welcome
04:24:00 <ivy> radhitya: you should probably upgrade as 14.0 is EOL :-d
04:24:07 <jauntyd> ^
04:24:11 <radhitya> ivy: ah thank you
04:24:18 <radhitya> let me try
04:24:19 <ivy> 14.s is current
04:24:23 <ivy> er, 14.0
04:24:25 <ivy> er
04:24:27 <ivy> 14.1
04:24:28 <ivy> damnit
04:24:31 <jauntyd> hehe
04:24:33 <ivy> typing is hard
04:24:39 <jauntyd> I've never made a mistake ;)
04:25:58 <radhitya> ok, wish me luck :)
04:26:05 <jauntyd> good luck hombre
04:26:18 <goonmorning> jauntyd: it is my first infra
04:26:20 <radhitya> freebsd-update fetch
04:26:22 <radhitya> src component not installed, skippesadasdasad
04:26:24 <radhitya> wish me luck
04:26:30 <ivy> radhitya: fwiw, X.0 release usually have a slightly shorter support period than other releases
04:26:48 <goonmorning> I think eating own dog food is not so effective if you don't use for work
04:31:52 <goonmorning> I will be back once I get stuck
04:31:58 <goonmorning> have all good days
04:39:25 <kevans> ivy: huh?
04:39:40 <ivy> kevin: huh what?
04:39:46 <ivy> is that not true anymore?
04:39:51 <ivy> i'm sure it used to be
04:39:51 <kevans> not supposed to be, no
04:39:56 <ivy> hmm
04:40:53 <kevans> it would be fair to say that the status quo up until recently has been that the schedule's been fairly chaotic and that may have accidentally been the case, but with a five year branch lifetime you should've been seeing roughly one a year
04:42:26 <kevans> the new policy offers a vast improvement where we have more firm release targets
04:42:34 <kevans> s/targets/target dates/
04:42:35 <ivy> just looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_version_history#Version_history it seems like it was, but maybe that wasn't intentional
04:42:45 <kevans> I can't speak for anything before 11.0 personally
04:42:45 <ivy> (e.g. 6.x, 7.x)
04:43:15 <kevans> 11.x or 10.x was where the five-year stable branch model was enacted, IIRC, and 10.4/11.0 are the first releases I was around for
04:43:28 <ivy> ah i may be remembering something from before then
04:44:26 <kevans> yeah, I see 9.x was pretty wild. 10.x was kind of approaching our just-ending cadence
04:44:28 <ivy> fricking zoomers, it was better when X.0 release was only supported for 3 days, etc. etc.
04:44:34 <kevans> =D
04:44:52 <ivy> also i never remember having a wireguard crash on 3-STABLE just fyi
04:45:49 <ivy> (remember when you had to run -stable to get security patches?  then they introduced this newfangled 'p1' stuff)
04:45:58 <kevans> no i'm young
04:46:31 <ivy> we should just ditch these release and make main a rolling release
04:46:42 <ivy> formalise stabweek
04:46:50 <ivy> so much less effort doing MFCs and stuff
04:47:15 <kevans> there's already some wanting to move towards even greater reduction in what we MFC
04:47:32 <ivy> not that i have a vote, but i'd be in favour of that
04:48:12 <kevans> i think it'd be good for perception, right now I think people expect us to MFC a lot more than we do and there's some wild inconsistency from committer-to-committer in their own personal MFC policy
04:48:13 <ivy> the other day i got a notification that someone MFC'd my netstat -W patch
04:48:43 <ivy> ok it's a cool patch and everyone loves it, phoronic was literally demanding this be backported because stable/14 is unusable without it, but i wonder if this is really true
04:48:47 <kevans> if the policy is to MFC much less, then we're not disappointing people as much when we just want to keep the branch stable
04:48:55 <ivy> perhaps people could wait until 15.0 to have better netstat
04:49:29 <kevans> oh, phoronix thought it was a good idea? must've actually been a terrible move :-)
04:49:32 <ivy> the way i see it, main is so stable nowadays that everyone is running main
04:49:41 <ivy> Netflix runs main, right?
04:50:09 <ivy> so there's really no real reason to have older tags at all other than to say "this is a version of the OS we think is stable"
04:50:15 <kevans> yeah, but they also have a really excellent engineering team to smooth operations over if they have problems
04:50:29 * kevans has no opinion but tends to lean towards stable personally
04:50:29 <ober> their use case may not cover everything
04:50:52 <ivy> just tag main once a year and call it 15.0, 16.0, 17.0, etc
04:51:01 <ivy> if any bugs come up, MFC those and call it 15.0.1
04:51:49 <ivy> i bet this would make it *easier* to support older release for longer because you're not dealing with so many divergant branches
04:52:20 <ivy> + more people using main means more stable releases in the future, more testing, etc
04:53:00 <kevans> i think it's a lot easier to make this argument with pkgbase on the horizon
04:54:15 <ivy> can you just vote me into core@ and i will make this happen
04:54:36 <kevans> i don't want to do source-based upgrade of a fleet.  freebsd-update-server is kind of a pain to setup, but pkgbase is damn near trivial to deploy
04:54:57 <ivy> oh yeah i've been using pkgbase forever i forget that's not standard sometimes
04:55:04 <kevans> yeah
04:55:05 <ivy> but it will be by 15.0 release right? :-d
04:55:09 <kevans> I started in *checks notes* late 2016
04:55:49 <ivy> we could just make pkgbase base and rename the entire project to PkgBSD and then release PkgBSD 1.0
04:55:56 <ivy> follow me for more excellent releng ideas
04:56:07 <kevans> ma'am this is RebuildLLVMBSD.  please step off with your renaming ideas.
04:56:23 * kevans launches tomatoes
04:56:45 <kevans> it's a good thing this isn't a venue for strictly professional discussion
04:56:54 <ivy> god i try to contribute and you throw tomatoes at me, this is why BSD is dying
04:57:41 <kevans> =D
04:58:37 <kevans> okay, i've got to go snore.  o/
04:59:18 <ivy> wow now you're saying i'm so boring i send you to sleep
04:59:37 <ivy> enjoy your life, kevin!
05:00:42 <ivy> god this has upset me so much, i have to go downstairs and find more vodka
05:01:02 <ivy> look upon me and despair, freebsd community, for this is what thou hast wrought
05:14:23 <radhitya> ls
05:14:25 <radhitya> eh sorry
05:27:51 <jauntyd> hi radhitya
07:09:01 <goonmorning> hello
07:12:45 <|cos|> morning,
07:14:52 <goonmorning> I have two vnet jails and only one has internet access via a bridge. What could be the issue?
07:18:14 <goonmorning> I just tested with three vnet jails and it is only the first vnet jail who can i have an internet access
07:52:07 <goonmorning> os is stable but a programmer can use it unstable ;0
09:03:52 <xxy>  my sound card Realtek ALC662 have large noise,  can i change sound  device to Nvidia device , https://paste.centos.org/view/03d2d215, if it can , how to do it
09:47:28 <ei> xxy: try sysctl hw.snd.default_unit
10:58:15 <istevenmon> has anyone tried using openiked for simple ipsec vpn? Even though the config file syntax is OK I seem to be missing something, when I start the daemon I get this error and I don't see any connection request being generated: udp_bind: failed to bypass IPsec on IKE socket: Protocol not available
11:15:25 <istevenmon> ha! the ipsec module was not loaded in the kernel :')
14:25:04 <f451> kevans: i thought this was RebuildRustBSD ;)
16:10:21 <zBeeble> evil thought: if web assembly runs clang/llvm now, how long until we can boot FreeBSD in Mozilla.
16:13:32 <rwp> People can boot a Linux kernel there now.  So when someone does the work to set it up for a FreeBSD kernel then it can be done.
16:21:22 <johnjaye> zBeeble: i did that yesterday. copy.sh/v86
16:28:33 <goonmorning> morgen
17:33:00 <debdrup> johnjaye: well that's slightly terrifying :D
18:16:31 <johnjaye> heh. honestly i just wanted to look up a manpage. which i could probably have just done from the website anyway
18:23:02 <nsoci> hi. does anyone using luakit browser? How safe/secure is to compare to firefox, please?
20:16:55 <debdrup> i wonder how these questions end up in #freebsd
20:36:02 <mns> inside of a jail, what is the accurate way of determining the version of FreeBSD being used?
20:36:35 <futune> is there a problem with freebsd-version?
20:37:31 <mns> I created the jail using bastille, so I was thinking it would be 13.2-RELEASE-p8,  but uname returns 14.1-RELEASE-p5, as does freebsd-version -r
20:37:46 <futune> I just tested in a 13.3 jail on a 14.1 host, it returns correctly
20:37:51 <mns> freebsd-version -u returns 13.2-RELEASE-p8
20:38:22 <mns> futune: freebds-version -ur return the same values for you?
20:38:32 <mns> *freebsd-version
20:39:23 <futune> with -ur it returns 14.1-RELEASE-p5 on the first line and 13.3-RELEASE-p4 on the second line, which are the correct versions for host and jail
20:39:58 <futune> I guess the first line might be kernel? It's the same as host, in any case
20:40:09 <mns> ok so jail version should be -u and host is -r.
20:40:23 <mns> -k would be kernel and you can't get that inside a jail
20:40:45 <futune> indeed, can confirm
20:40:50 <mns> so I can't use uname -a, I have to use freebsd-version -u when trying to determine the version of a jail
20:41:30 <mns> thanks for confirming.  I thought I was doing something wrong.  This is the first time that my jails and host OS are not the same OS
20:41:41 <mns> or rather, not the same OS version
20:42:53 <futune> no problem, hope your project goes well
21:49:25 <debdrup> uname is derived from a sysctl, so no it won't work for the userland, as sysctls come from the kernel