ipsec_*_policy() functions, as it was documented and used by clients
-remove "ipsec_policy_t" which was undocumented and only present
in the KAME version of the ipsec.h header
-misc cleanup of historical artefacts, and to remove unnecessary
differences between KAME ans FAST_IPSEC
packets have already sent because of the preload count handling, we
shouldn't start off by sending another one right away. The reversed
test causes ping6 to wait one interval before sending anything at all
if you don't use -l. PR bin/39732.
FORTIFY_SOURCE feature of libssp, thus checking the size of arguments to
various string and memory copy and set functions (as well as a few system
calls and other miscellany) where known at function entry. RedHat has
evidently built all "core system packages" with this option for some time.
This option should be used at the top of Makefiles (or Makefile.inc where
this is used for subdirectories) but after any setting of LIB.
This is only useful for userland code, and cannot be used in libc or in
any code which includes the libc internals, because it overrides certain
libc functions with macros. Some effort has been made to make USE_FORT=yes
work correctly for a full-system build by having the bsd.sys.mk logic
disable the feature where it should not be used (libc, libssp iteself,
the kernel) but no attempt has been made to build the entire system with
USE_FORT and doing so will doubtless expose numerous bugs and misfeatures.
Adjust the system build so that all programs and libraries that are setuid,
directly handle network data (including serial comm data), perform
authentication, or appear likely to have (or have a history of having)
data-driven bugs (e.g. file(1)) are built with USE_FORT=yes by default,
with the exception of libc, which cannot use USE_FORT and thus uses
only USE_SSP by default. Tested on i386 with no ill results; USE_FORT=no
per-directory or in a system build will disable if desired.
for non-related samples. There are several websites that explain why we
should use this form instead of the normal formula to compute the std. dev.
(Wikipedia is one of them).
Also, ping(8) (where this "new" formula came from) already does it this way
so, I'm trying to score some extra points by making both utilities behave
the same way.
Thanks to wrtstuden@ for the initial clarification.
* RFC 3542 isn't binary compatible with RFC 2292.
* RFC 2292 support is on by default but can be disabled.
* update ping6, telnet and traceroute6 to the new API.
From the KAME project (www.kame.net).
Reviewed by core.
christos