i need to set UFS partitioning in installerconfig, but failing.. anyone here can help me?

does anyone know off hand if FreeBSD supports /31 IPv4 subnets? (maybe a strange question but Linux didn't support this until surprisingly recently)

anyone get g_dev_taste failed to g_attach error=6 in console?

mzar: erdgeist.org/arts/software/ezjail/#author-contact

rtprio: yes, are you in touch with the author ?

Guys, I have a elantech touchpad, and I have enabled the hw.psm.elantech_support. But still it does not work. What should I do?

here is my hw.psm sysctl: privatebin.spmzt.net/?fb9296470e171…Jv4ztWWwZazvX8mio4yedhojwuP5krMyQL7

how do i reinstall ezjail from scratch?

i want ot make a fresh installation

because apparently my jail is incompatibile with the abi my host provides

so maybe i just updae the jail

idk, guys?

yes, go for it

how to update te jail then?

that's what i get, idk what to do

wsky: are you running STABLE or CURRENT ? if not use -u or -U

stable

i never used ezjail before

have you built this stable ?

no

the host is 14.2

14.2-RELEASE

OK, so you are not running STABLE

procede with -U

what exact ommand should it be?

ezjail-admin update -U probably

freebsd-update: Cannot upgrade from 14.2-RELEASE to itself

OK, so you are up to date

so what's wrong then?

everything is fine

nope

and then when i install matrix-conduit i get abi error

bug?

you are running kernel 14.0

too old

[root@vlepy /usr/src]# uname -a

FreeBSD vlepy.com 14.2-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE-p1 GENERIC amd64

what are the numbers from "uname -KU" inside jail ?

1402000 1400097

OK, so ezjail userland is from 14.0

ok so what now?

maybe you'll figure out how to update it ?

:((

thanks anyway

it should be doable with "ezjail-admin update -U" after setting UNAME_r, read ezjail-admin(8)

so what should i exactly do?

so what should i exactly do?/

what $UNAME_r should contain?

do a 'file /<path to jails>/basejail/bin/sh', it gives you the version of the jail. Then do a 'ezjail-admin update -U -s <the version resulting from the previous command>'

i understand now

thanks

alright guys, i got it

at least this

thanks

root@conduit:~ # conduit

thread 'main' panicked at src/main.rs:55:55:

now what

alright i'm doing progress

i'm having an issue with matrix-conduit

it runs fine from command line but from rc level (with service conduoit start) only prints starting message and nothing happens

that is happening in my ezjail container

you might want to upgrade the packages again in that jail

all up to date

the program runs fine manyually from command line

pkg upgrade -f ?

but from rc silently fails

oh no i didn't do -f :D

seems odd, actually, maybe something with a path in the config that is restricted for conduit?

I know it should run fine as a service, because I used it a while

possibly a bug?

brb cig

back

ok now i get:

2025-02-13T12:33:23.372724Z ERROR conduit: The database couldn't be loaded or created error=RocksDbError { source: E

rror { message: "IO error: While renaming a file to /var/lib/matrix-conduit//LOG.old.1739450003372120: /var/lib/matr

ix-conduit//LOG: Permission denied" } }

in conduit logs

and i get now root@conduit:~ # conduit

Segmentation fault (core dumped)

xD

wth is going on

ok i have it running :D thanks

permissions?

is there a good gui totp thing in the ports any of you would recommend? looking for something that's not bundled into a password manager (unless it's pass).

i don't know of one, have you searched the ports tree already?

I feel im the only BSD user which detests GPL... everyone recommends me GPL nonfree BS and gets pissed when I call it nonfree (I know GPL is officially a free licence, but imo not free enough), am I just insane?

it's not worthwhile to get worked up over

is there really a way to avoid all gpl software these days?

fink: no ;(

polarian: what are you missing from the base install? :)

when I hear "enforcing freedom" I cringe

you got an editor, a c compiler, what else do you really need

getz: back foul emacs user :)

;)

You have no power here servant of Stallman!!!

getz: hmm lemme think... anything desktop related is GPLv3

oh and AGPL popularity is increasing, as if the infection client side wasnt bad enough, its spread server side too!!

anyways stripping back my reliance on GPL code is 2026 mes problem, 2025 is eliminating my reliance on Linux

2026, living in a hut and raising sheep

rtprio: I wish

im stuck in London until Summer 2026

maybe if I directed my anger at GPL into studying I could contribute lol

polarian: don't be angry at the GPL, be angry at the corporations that lead to the GPL and the general mess that copyright law and patents bring to the wider software ecosystem :P

dstolfa: yet tje corporations give back more than GPL folks do...

the*

dont forget who funds freebsd

you dont fight copyright with copyright...

sorry "copyleft" which is just GNU rhetoric for "copyright"

a few companies that choose to employ freebsd developers and contribute some, but not all code back doesn't automatically mean you should excuse the 95%+ of companies that actively make the world a worse place through use of copyright and patents. the GPL is a symptom, not the problem

you dont use the actions of a few against the many

OpenBSD (not sure about freebsd) thrived from small ISPs adopting it

giving back...

just because some big companies such as Apple dont give back doesnt mean they are all like that

i'm well aware of how the BSDs get their funding and development funded. i still fundamentally disagree with you, though

apple does actually give back, just indirectly

Apple also funds conferences but hey ho they are the biggest example used

dstolfa: theres a good reason both freebsd and openbsd have GPL reduction/removal goals

BSD takes from Linux, thats against GPL, Linux takes from BSD, thats fine! They take just like corporations do and weaponise the GPL...

GPL serves nobody but the FSF lawyers in which it was written to benefit

so yes it is a big deal GPL code... because once you adopt a single line of GPL, your entire code must abide by GPL conditions and all derivatives... you lose your freedom as a developer to do with your code as you wish.

it's not just adopting a single line of code, it's even packaging a library, no? if you package a (bsd) + b (gpl), a+b = gpl?

dstolfa: what freedom has the GPL even maintained? My wifi AP runs their Linux enshitification, what freedom do I have there? Its still blobbed and highly proprietary... but HEY at least they must release their Linux src tree, makes everything better? right? right!!?

fink: indeed

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#%22Viral%22_nature hate to agree with Microsoft, but they weren't wrong here

polarian: you're arguing with yourself, i have never said that i prefer the GPL over permissive licenses. i'm saying that the GPL is a symptom of a broken system of copyright and patents, not the cause of misfortunes that arise from it

dstolfa: and I argued the GPL hasnt even helped with the "broken system" you have referenced...

so what is its purpose then?

i never said it did

i said it's a symptom

not the cause

oh..

the GPL (and AGPL) are basically knee jerk reactions to a broken copyright system. the end result is that GPL'd software just ends up with a thin client and a service that uses 80-90% of GPL code but runs on a server, so no binary is distributed and therefore no code needs to be shared. also a great cause of division in the FLOSS world

and the way copyright law works in most places, only the holder of said copyright can sue for license violations. which... well, good luck suing a large company on your own

dstolfa: but nothing forces you to adopt big tech software other than your job, school or potentially government... its not the companies which tie your hands its your superiors

polarian: sure, the same superiors who made said broken laws :P

well there we have it, blame the government haha

i usually do

whos up for a revolution /j

i'm trying to set up a freebsd wireguard server. i have wireguard running on the server and the client can connect and ping the wireguard server's private ip over the connection. the wireguard client can't connect to the wider internet through the connection though. do i need to set up nat in pf for that?

ek ^

demido: Yep. You'll likely need to setup an outbound NAT rule in PF to the WAN interface.

ok got that. and so i can pass all udp traffic to me, i added a rdr rule too. but to avoid the wireguard port being sucked into that, i added no rdr rule for wireguard port

seems to be all working. i can get network out from wg client through wg server, wg client can connect to wg server, and all udp traffic is coming in to wg client through the rdr rule on wg server

all good so far?

yep

ok so now i'm gonna try to start adding firewall rules, to block unwanted stuff on the wg server so it doesn't even make it to wg client. so i removed the 'pass' qualifier on the rdr directive, and now i'll start adding some explicit blocks. right?

demido: Sure. Add whatever you want to the rules. Just make sure you take it one step at a time (or have backups of working configurations.)

or, YOLO-ops

rtprio: Been through that too many times to even consider it anymore.

nvim with undo cache and some sort of RCS is the only way to go.

Of course, with testing, it's not that big of a deal. But, in testing, if something works and then I break it and can't figure out why, that sucks.

ek rtprio ok these are my pf config and they seem perfect but pls double check me: termbin.com/mhxs

and basically the point is, i can ssh into server. wg client can connect to server to establish wireguard connection. all udp above 1023, except for wireguard port, is redirected to wg client. wg client can nat all traffic out through wg server. wg server can pass all traffic of its own out

demido: It appears it will most likely work (aside from the missing NAT for outbound WG to WAN?)

I'm still unsure what all the extra rdr and pass rules are for. It doesn't seem to accomplish much? What, exactly, are you trying to do with all the extra rules?

Why not just keep it simple, like this?: forums.freebsd.org/threads/wireguar…with-pf-problems.72623/#post-448368

'pass all' for 1

"aside from the missing NAT for outbound WG to WAN" how is my 1 nat rule not doing that?

demido: But, what is wrong with "pass all" from inside the WG server? What are you trying to prevent?

some stuff i want to block at the server

You want to block outgoing requests from the server side?

no i wanna block some stuff in to the server from public internet

Is the firewall for the WG server or the WG client?

both

runs on wg server, has rules that apply to both wg server itself, and wg client

So, by default, everything is blocked from public. There's no reason to specifically block things. You only need to allow specific requests.

How they are blocked, of course, is up to you (you can be more specific.)

ok

well it's all working as is anyway so i'm gonna just move on but ty

So, on the server-side, open the SSH (tcp) and WG (udp) ports for the the client (can be specific address or "any".)

Then, NAT the WG interface to the WAN interface and pass out "all". That way, the WG server itself as well as the client can reach out to the internet.

On the client-side, by default, a PF firewall will allow all out and not allow anything in (from an unrequested source.) So, you don't really need to do anything.

A client request will be allowed out to the WG server and the WG server response will be allowed back in and a connection will complete.

demido: I'm glad to hear it's all working.

ty for your help

you get your bhyve issue fixed?

Nope. No one has any clue as to why it happened or how to fix it. I gave up and just rebooted. If I run into the issue again, I'll come back to it.

Thanks for asking!

dang

have a 2nd box you can setup with dupe config and test on?

exit

demido: Not at the moment, no. And, to top it off, I'm not sure I'll be able to reproduce the issue yet. I can't remember exactly what's happened, to be honest. So, I'll just wait it out.

ok