06:43:03 :) 14:19:18 i don't suppose anyone's looked at extended ipd/ipdadm to apply more granularly than an entire zone? 14:19:22 err extending 14:19:54 In the past when talking with Seb he suggested doing that with flowadm. 14:20:07 And if I had thought about that, that'd honestly have been a better way to probably go. 14:20:46 ahh you mean adding the drop/delay/etc. as properties to a flow? 14:20:52 Yeah. 14:21:09 Because once you want to be more granular, that's probably the thing to specify it on. 14:21:18 yeah, that makes sense.. 14:22:48 Not a very satisfying answer though. 14:24:31 i guess i need to look at the code and see how hard it'd be to do that :) 17:46:53 [illumos-gate] 16542 Document ACL_NORESOLVE flag for acl_totext -- Bill Sommerfeld 17:51:47 Hi. I know nobody is likely using it any longer, but does anyone here have experience with Oracle Developer Studio compilrs on illumos (OpenIndiana)? 17:52:30 I was able to get it working great, and I even modified the binaries to also define `__unix__` and `__illumos__` like current illumos GCC and Clang does. 17:55:16 That needed a bit of binary patching, which was fun. 17:56:20 The problem I'm seeing is that I get all sorts of warnings from the header files with Lint, that don't happen in Solaris. Nothing chagnes even if I explicity set -errhdr to %none 17:56:26 Like https://dpaste.com/G6VPB6DCE.txt 17:57:58 And that odd library warning. Debug output looks like https://dpaste.com/6JTLCANZ4.txt 17:58:34 Everything else I've tested is working great (C, C++, Fortran, etc.) 18:01:58 jhj: illumos stopped shipping system lint libraries when we integrated http://illumos.org/issues/10361 18:05:52 you'd need to work out how to build your own against the illumos-gate sources. 18:07:02 Oh, I see. 18:07:34 I'll have to look into it. 18:09:21 Hello All 18:10:03 Will Solaris expire in the future? 18:12:42 it's not milk 18:16:05 Discontinue 18:18:58 everything ends eventually but there's no reason to believe that will happen to illumos (and related) any time soon. 18:19:53 No illumos. Will Oracle discontinue Solaris? 18:20:30 Solaris from Oracle has a support end of 2034 at the moment. This project is unrelated and we only hear the rumors that others hear too. In the illumos project works in oracle 18:21:08 *nobody in the illumos projects works on Solaris or inside of Oracle 18:21:34 Only Oracle can tell what Oracle will or will not do:) 18:21:49 It's its own Oracle 18:23:48 It is doubtful even oracle knows what they're going to do 6 months from now. 18:36:01 last I saw, they extended somewhat 18:36:25 you'd need your oracle support person to tell you more 18:36:39 probably make sure it's in writing, if they do 18:48:12 blood if you can :P 18:58:03 given that people are still running solaris 10 in production, that end data wont really mater much;) 19:01:58 I think they actually just bumped the end of days to 2037. 19:02:57 sommerfeld: On Linux, does 19:03:16 the lint libraries work by using some kind of generic POSIX prototypes? 19:04:39 I'm kind of upset that they have end of support for 6/2024 for Studio, and a "real" EOL for 6/27. 19:04:45 Doesn't look like that is going to be extended. 19:05:39 And it's getting a bit long in the tooth, especially C++ support, and dbx doesn't handle latest DWARF formats, yadda yadda. 19:05:51 Oracle doesn't seem to care too much about the developer tools. 19:09:51 horacle only cares about their main cash cow. 19:09:58 It would be awesome if they open-sourced the compilers and tools, but that'll never happen. 19:10:03 Anything that doesn't contribute *directly* to that is not going to get much love. 19:10:05 nomad, yeah. 19:10:32 Even if it contributes indirectly they won't care (until they find out that it does actually contribute.) 19:10:54 and they certainly don't care about the convenience of their developers. Useful tools? Who needs those? 19:11:43 We use other tooling of course (LLVM's sanitizers, Clang Analyzer, GCC Static Analyzer, Coverity, PVS-Studio, Cppcheck, Sonar, etc.) 19:12:29 But for C stuff through C11, Oracle Lint is nice, and it's found things uniquely, and we like it's type analysis stuff. 19:13:15 Meh, ignore me. I'm just a bitter ol' sysadmin, not a dev (bitter or otherwise). 19:13:20 Just tired of the enshitification. 19:13:29 And on x86_64, for raw benchmarks, it's not really that far behind the state of the art, like 20% or so really. 19:13:47 Considering it's not had major development since 2017, that's quite impressive. 19:14:19 Also, Oracle C does things differently (allowably differently). It's the only compiler I Know of that does bit-field stuff in a big-endian way, even on LE platforms. 19:14:59 And a host of other oddities that it's nice to have some diversity for, when testing. 19:15:19 But does horacle care about any of that? 19:16:41 jhj: lint libraries are built by lint, from *.ln input 19:16:44 nomad: I guess not. 19:16:55 * nomad nods sadly 19:16:55 the format is probably undocumented, but we happen to still have `lintdump` in usr/src/tools 19:17:08 the resulting format of the llib-libfoo files, that is 19:18:41 I like still like using discover, but msan works well enough to replace it now, and gcov/lcov/gcovr works equally well or better than uncover these days... 19:19:49 richlowe: Yeah, I just briefly looked at it, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to get that going again, especially since I can run Studio on Solaris and Linux. 19:27:48 jhj: I've never used the Studio tools on Linux 20:10:46 To develop Illumos, which programming language you must know? 20:15:38 largely C, though is some stuff in a few others 20:16:57 Not Rust? 20:16:58 nongeek: most of the code is in C. But there are bits in ksh, perl, python, awk, sed, a bit of C++, a sprinkling of assembler. some config is in xml. 20:17:13 some exciting m4 20:17:28 downstreams of illumos have extensive amounts of rust, we as yet have none 20:18:00 exciting is certainly one way to describe m4 20:18:30 jbk: usr/src/cmd/sgs/libelf/common/xlate64.m4 20:18:58 Downstreams? 20:19:38 Why Illumos doesn't use Rust? 20:19:48 we have perl generating assembler 20:20:19 nobody's written any code in it and asked illumos to 20:20:35 (see, among others, usr/src/common/crypto/sha2/amd64/sha512-x86_64.pl ) 20:21:06 New OSes using it. I guess windows 11 and Linux uses it. 20:21:07 most of the code was written before there was a generally available rust compiler. 20:21:17 i'm guessing that came from openssl 20:21:22 jbk: yup. 20:22:41 Is it true C is not secure? 20:25:12 no, C can be just as secure as anything else... though a fair criticism is that it can be harder (sometimes much harder) to write secure code compared to other languages 20:25:35 C is very user friendly. It is just picky about who its friends are. 20:25:42 i mean, openbsd is probably a higher percentage of C (relative to their total code) than we do 20:25:52 err we are 20:26:03 and I don't think anyone would accuse them of not being secure :) 20:26:50 There is excellent tooling for C and C++ that you can prove formally (in the absolute mathematical sense) that absense of any bugs in your code. 20:27:27 Not just saying there aren't bugs, but proving that they can't exist. 20:29:28 well, by starting to validate your function domain and co-domain you can exclude quite a many problems;) 20:30:05 But doing this is really something that a) takes a very large amount of effort, and b) really needs to be done up-front. It can't really be applied retroactively to existing code that wasn't developed with sound formal verification and validation. 20:30:06 Tnx 20:30:51 I guess this falls into what jbk said in that "C can be just as secure as anything else", but it's just harder to do. 20:31:55 Oh he left. We scared him away. 20:41:33 Oh, well, in case any of you guys want to run Oracle Studio tools on illumos, but you want to have `__illumos__` and `__unix__` defined by the preprocessor like current illumos Clang and GCC do... 20:41:36 https://i.imgur.com/ZVVbYWm.png 20:41:59 yeah, we can't really arrange for that. 20:42:03 I'm going to assume Oracle won't patch it for us 20:42:38 You can nop out the JMP here, change the `__linux` and `__linux__` below it both into just `__unix` (it won't complain if defined the same multiple times this way) and then you can turn `__gnu__linux__` into `__illumos__` quite easily. :) 20:43:17 You need to do it a few binaries, but it's code is always in the same spot. 20:44:10 That way it ends up defining `-D__unix -D__SVR4__ -D__svr4__ -D__SVR4 -D__sun -D__sun__ -D__SunOS -D__unix__ -D__unix -D__unix__ -D__illumos__` 20:45:23 richlowe: It's easy enough to do yourself. I know it's not really a supported compiler anyway. 20:48:16 Most distributions stopped shipping studio when we lost the legal right to use it. I've used it in a few commercial settings, but it wasn't a cheap licence 20:49:37 We have the legal right to a 12.1 that we can't actually use to build illumos (properly) 20:49:49 and the specific tarballs that _can_ build illumos, but I'm not sure we could ever redistribute 20:49:50 andyf: Hi Andy, yes, I remember I asked you about this a while back and you explained to me that Oracle did let you use that older version officially. 20:50:05 what we're not allowed to do, unfortunately, is patch the binaries 20:50:32 so that's why we deleted the support for building illumos, because we kinda had nothing else to do 20:51:02 I don't remember the specific wording, but my recollection was only that we could use that studio 12.1 under certain circumstances, and our circumstances changed. 20:51:12 I know from a couple of people that what -- what I assume is a tiny tiny group that's left -- have done with newer versions is very impressive, though. 20:51:28 (or at least, some lawyers recommended that omnios no longer ship it) 20:51:42 You could probably distribute patches and have people supply their own toolchains. 20:51:47 andyf: if they're your lawyers, listen to them. 20:51:49 Probably not worth it. 20:53:08 The current license for the GA release (no post-2017 patches) says it "provides perpetual no-cost license for production use and the development of commercial applications"... 20:53:23 ... but the actual terms don't allow you to re-distribute the toolchain. 20:53:43 It does allow you to modify it, but only "as required by law for interoperability". 20:54:34 Anyway, they're no longer developing it as of last month, so I don't think Oracle is going to sue me for using it on current illumos :) 20:54:42 *next month 20:55:04 I'm a very low-risk kind of person, and have always felt that guessing where oracle would feel litigious is probably not good for me. 20:57:06 I'm probably going to see what a support contract costs for premier support, to see if I can grab the "last" version of it, before they kill the product. 20:57:17 However, it no longer even appears on the current price list (https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf) 20:58:50 It's dead, Jim. :( 20:59:30 Well, "extended" support ends 2027. 20:59:56 I guess I'd have to call them, and get added to the ForceSales database again.