02:37:25 is there any plan to upgrade gcc from 10 to 14 which used to compile OS? 02:39:33 the gcc 14 offer -march supports x86-64-v2, x86-64-v3, x86-64-v4 05:26:29 sommerfeld: I have been having some thoughts about IP tunnels and IPsec, which I've written up in: https://github.com/illumos/ipd/blob/master/ipd/0046/README.adoc 05:26:44 Would appreciate any thoughts or context before I put it out more widely! 05:47:32 jclulow: will look tomorrow. 05:47:37 Tah! 12:01:42 tozhu the specific version is not set. we still have some cleanups to do for 13/14 (about 20 components or patches) before we can start to think of using for secondary compiler. 15:39:32 [illumos-gate] 16727 pcfs_fstyp: multiple issues with FAT data processing -- Toomas Soome 16:01:13 now mkfs? :D 19:06:12 I'm waiting for udfs 19:06:21 not because I use it, but because I know exactly how broken it is in userland 21:37:01 If someone has some time I could use a look at https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/3664. 21:37:02 → CODE REVIEW 3664: 16754 libjedec support for LPDDR3-5, DDR3 16753 update libjedec for DDR5 SPD 1.2 16755 Overhaul and improve SPD tests, fallout 16756 Rename libjedec_test to better reflect vendor nature (NEW) | https://www.illumos.org/issues/16754 21:38:08 jclulow: read over your IPD 46 and it looks good. tagging policies with their owner makes sense and a similar tag should be used on routes. my bias would be for something fixed-size (id_t or uint64_t or the like) in the kernel to simplify the kernel innards 22:00:36 sommerfeld and jclulow ==> See my filed-issue about the existing SADB_X_KM_COOKIE and how it might help. 22:58:38 [illumos-gate] 16762 smbfs mdb module using wrong headers -- Gordon Ross 22:58:38 [illumos-gate] 16761 Let SMB client nsmb kmod use mapfiles -- Gordon Ross 23:10:40 jclulow: I also think that similar tagging should be done for routes - and I believe there are examples of that in other network stacks. 23:11:08 sommerfeld: Yeah I totally agree on the routes stuff 23:11:36 The two bits is a historical accident with which people have made do haha 23:13:27 There are other issues with route management as well, like the fact that an interface going down makes the routes that were attached to it ... invisible and unmanageable I think? 23:13:33 But like, they come back if it comes back up 23:13:41 which makes it pretty hard to do the right thing for BGP etc 23:17:33 danmcd: In this context the KM cookie is what the kernel gives you when it is requesting a dynamically created SA for some new flow? 23:17:58 gives you back, that is 23:18:12 so that you know which IKE session it is meant for? 23:18:54 (looks like FreeBSD imported netlink, which adds a "routing protocol" tag to each route) 23:21:16 jclulow: IIRC, yes 23:23:35 basically the kernel just gives you back whatever value you gave it when you created the SA 23:24:28 Right 23:24:57 I think the management tag would probably be separate from that 23:25:24 But I will have a look! 23:25:53 for ikev2 we expanded it (IIRC we just used some existing reserved space in the struct) to 64-bits 23:26:51 Yeah I found the ticket Dan mentioned 23:29:26 sommerfeld: I feel like we would need a new RTM_VERSION to add a tag there 23:29:48 And then some way to opt into it 23:30:40 Unfortunately the protocol argument in the socket() call is AF_INET (etc) so we'd have to do some kind of SOL_ROUTE thing probably 23:32:40 seems doable though?