On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:06 PM, tito <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 05 August 2014 15:21:49 you wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM, tito <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Tuesday 05 August 2014 14:47:53 you wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:42 PM, tito <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Tuesday 05 August 2014 14:27:57 you wrote: >> > >> > > > I disagree. There is nothing to reject here. It fixes _my >> issue_ at >> > >> hand. >> > >> > > > If you want to fix other bugs in your system that you are >> facing in >> > >> > > > reality, by all means, fix them in a separate change. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > I definitely do not agree with dynamically allocated buffer >> for the >> > >> > > simple >> > >> > > > reasons of: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > 1) Slow. >> > >> > > > 2) You would still need a maximum anyway. >> > >> > > > 3) Needless code complication. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Let us keep things simple and good, you know the good old KISS >> > >> principle. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > P.S.: please do not bikeshed. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, tito <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > On Tuesday 05 August 2014 12:46:08 you wrote: >> > >> > > > > > Here is my tested fix without being to debug the busybox >> code, >> > >> so >> > >> > > only >> > >> > > > > code >> > >> > > > > > reading and understanding were my friends: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > commit 9610650b6ce2a4c1904f78a2dcdb47cad3d2e3d1 >> > >> > > > > > Author: Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > > > Date: Tue Aug 5 11:42:24 2014 +0100 >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Allow 256 bytes long usernames as per Unix standards >> > >> (usually) >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > diff --git a/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c b/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c >> > >> > > > > > index 2060d78..368c252 100644 >> > >> > > > > > --- a/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c >> > >> > > > > > +++ b/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c >> > >> > > > > > @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> /**********************************************************************/ >> > >> > > > > > /* Sizes for statically allocated buffers. */ >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > -#define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 256 >> > >> > > > > > -#define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 256 >> > >> > > > > > +#define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 >> > >> > > > > > +#define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> /**********************************************************************/ >> > >> > > > > > /* Prototypes for internal functions. */ >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi, >> > >> > > > > yes I've thought also about this solution but rejected it >> because: >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > 1) there will not be enough space to hold the home dir if >> named >> > >> the >> > >> > > same >> > >> > > > > as the user >> > >> > > > > so you need at least: >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+ 6 (for home) + >> > >> LOGIN_NAME_MAX >> > >> > > (or >> > >> > > > > PATH_MAX?) + 256 (for the rest) >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > yet this might not be enough as in my passwd file I see a >> 101 >> > >> char >> > >> > > long >> > >> > > > > passwd. >> > >> > > > > Add the gecos fields (arbitrary lenght) to it and the >> default >> > >> > > shell >> > >> > > > > and we are short on space again. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > 2) same for #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256: >> > >> > > > > here you need to take into account the group member list >> with >> > >> > > > > an arbitrary number of members: >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256+ >> LOGIN_NAME_MAX*n: >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > The only clean solution to fix it forever is dynamically >> allocated >> > >> > > buffers >> > >> > > > > created at the time you read in the line from the passwd >> files. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Ciao, >> > >> > > > > Tito >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > P.S.: please don't top post. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Laszlo Papp < >> [email protected]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Yeah, mayhaps... Thanks for the prompt reply. I tried to >> > >> debug the >> > >> > > > > code, >> > >> > > > > > > but the busybox code here is a bit messy heavily abusing >> > >> macros in >> > >> > > C >> > >> > > > > and >> > >> > > > > > > all that. It ain't easy I must confess! >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > For instance, see this section: >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c#n227 >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > The _source_ is included several times always getting a >> new >> > >> meaning >> > >> > > > > based >> > >> > > > > > > on some defines... Now, check this function: >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp_internal.c#n20 >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > "resultbuf" will be always different depending on which >> > >> include it >> > >> > > is. >> > >> > > > > > > Since it is failing at the pw_name check in there, I >> wanted to >> > >> > > print it >> > >> > > > > > > out, but no easy joy there as printing it like that will >> yield >> > >> > > > > compilation >> > >> > > > > > > error when the file is being included next time from >> above. >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Right, I thought instead of doing some "#if a == b" >> hackery, >> > >> > > debugging >> > >> > > > > > > would be easier, BUT: >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > 1) The default build is stripped, yuck! >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > 2) The unstripped build cannot locate the symbols (*). >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > So, I am giving up on this for now; this is not the type >> of >> > >> source >> > >> > > code >> > >> > > > > > > that is so pleasant to work with. ;-) >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Cheers, L. >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > * (gdb) b main >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Breakpoint 2 at 0x407c71 >> > >> > > > > > > (gdb) r >> > >> > > > > > > Starting program: >> > >> /home/lpapp/Projects/busybox/busybox_unstripped >> > >> > > > > deluser >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > > warning: Could not load shared library symbols for >> > >> linux-vdso.so.1. >> > >> > > > > > > Do you need "set solib-search-path" or "set sysroot"? >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Breakpoint 2, 0x0000000000407c71 in main () >> > >> > > > > > > (gdb) list >> > >> > > > > > > No symbol table is loaded. Use the "file" command. >> > >> > > > > > > (gdb) >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:40 PM, tito < >> [email protected]> >> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Monday 04 August 2014 19:06:39 Laszlo Papp wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> > Hi, >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > sudo busybox adduser >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> > passwd: unknown user >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Yet, the user is created in /etc/shadow: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff:!:16286:0:99999:7::: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > This is at least one issue, but there is another here: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > sudo busybox deluser >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> > deluser: unknown user >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > So, basically, once you create that long username, you >> > >> cannot >> > >> > > > > remove it >> > >> > > > > > >> > anymore with busybox and it keeps polluting your >> system. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > You have to gain other means to clean up! I am using >> this >> > >> > > version >> > >> > > > > over >> > >> > > > > > >> here: >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > BusyBox v1.22.1 (2014-06-02 14:47:37 MSK) multi-call >> > >> binary. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Could you please look into this and potentially fix >> it? >> > >> Thanks >> > >> > > in >> > >> > > > > > >> advance. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Cheers, L. >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> Hi, >> > >> > > > > > >> if disabling libb's internal pwd/grp lib and by jumping >> > >> through >> > >> > > some >> > >> > > > > hops >> > >> > > > > > >> it >> > >> > > > > > >> works for me: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> I need to add the group first as my system's groupadd >> command >> > >> > > called >> > >> > > > > by >> > >> > > > > > >> bb's adduser >> > >> > > > > > >> supports only groupnames of max 32 chars. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox addgroup >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox adduser >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> -G >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> Adding user >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> `fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff' >> > >> > > > > > >> to group >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> `fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff' >> > >> > > > > > >> ... >> > >> > > > > > >> Adding user >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> to group >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> Done. >> > >> > > > > > >> Enter new UNIX password: >> > >> > > > > > >> Retype new UNIX password: >> > >> > > > > > >> passwd: password updated successfully >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> and then I could also delete it: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox deluser >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox delgroup >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> delgroup: unknown group >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> (deluser correctly deleted also the group) >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> I suspect that the buffer size used in >> libbpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c >> > >> is to >> > >> > > > > small: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 256 >> > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 256 >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> as it is meant for the whole struct pw passwd (or >> struct gr >> > >> group) >> > >> > > > > fields >> > >> > > > > > >> which could be easily be bigger: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> grep ffff* /etc/shadow | wc >> > >> > > > > > >> 1 1 240 >> > >> > > > > > >> grep ffff* /etc/passwd | wc >> > >> > > > > > >> 1 2 286 >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> I think that the buffers' size must be increased for >> example >> > >> to: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE >> LOGIN_NAME_MAX+LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> we need one LOGIN_NAME_MAX size for the login and one >> more >> > >> for the >> > >> > > > > home >> > >> > > > > > >> dir >> > >> > > > > > >> if same as login, plus 256 for the remaining data >> (passwd, >> > >> gecos, >> > >> > > > > shell, >> > >> > > > > > >> etc). >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE >> LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256+LOGIN_NAME_MAX*n >> > >> (?) >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> we need one LOGIN_NAME_MAX size for the group name (for >> > >> which we >> > >> > > > > > >> actually enforce the same size as for the username) >> plus 256 >> > >> for >> > >> > > the >> > >> > > > > > >> remaining data >> > >> > > > > > >> plus LOGIN_NAME_MAX * n group member names. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> So for my limited understanding using static buffers >> here is >> > >> > > rather >> > >> > > > > > >> difficult >> > >> > > > > > >> as the size of data is not easily predictable. >> > >> > > > > > >> I don't know how real libc manages it (maybe realloc on >> > >> ERANGE?) >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> Your particular example for me is fixed by using. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 1024 >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 1024 >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> But to me it seems not an optimal solution, >> > >> > > > > > >> so other more experienced developers should >> > >> > > > > > >> take a look at it. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> Hope this helps. >> > >> > > > > > >> Ciao, >> > >> > > > > > >> Tito >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> PS: in libbbpwdgrp functions we need to check for >> errors: >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> 0 or ENOENT or ESRCH or EBADF or EPERM or ... >> > >> > > > > > >> The given name or gid was not found. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> EINTR A signal was caught. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> EIO I/O error. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> EMFILE The maximum number (OPEN_MAX) of files >> was open >> > >> > > already >> > >> > > > > in >> > >> > > > > > >> the calling process. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> ENFILE The maximum number of files was open >> already >> > >> in the >> > >> > > > > system. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> ENOMEM Insufficient memory to allocate group >> > >> structure. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> ERANGE Insufficient buffer space supplied. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> as for example the xgroup_study function in the addgroup >> > >> applet >> > >> > > > > > >> assigns a wrong gid if getgrgid fails for example for >> ERANGE >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> /* Check if the desired gid is free >> > >> > > > > > >> * or find the first free one */ >> > >> > > > > > >> while (1) { >> > >> > > > > > >> printf("gid %d\n", g->gr_gid); >> > >> > > > > > >> if (!getgrgid(g->gr_gid)) { >> > >> > > > > > >> return; /* found free group: >> return >> > >> */ >> > >> > > > > > >> } >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > Hi, >> > >> > > I doubt it fixes your issue >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What you are basically telling me here that I submitted untested >> changes >> > >> > for my use cases, directly or indirectly. Either way, I refuse this >> > >> claim >> > >> > since I _did_ test the change for my use case. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > because I tested the same fix and it did in fact >> > >> > >> > >> > fail. Please test: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > 1) ./busybox addgroup LONGUSERNAME (this fails in subtle ways >> as a >> > >> > > already in use gid is assigned) >> > >> > > 2) ./busybox adduser LONGUSERNAME -G LONGUSERNAME >> > >> > > 3) ./busybox deluser LONGUSERNAME >> > >> > > 4) ./busybox delgroup LONGUSERNAME >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > I do not see how this is any relevant to my initial steps. This is >> a >> > >> > completely different test step with a different issue. As I said >> > >> earlier, >> > >> > please welcome contributors rather than being blocker just because >> they >> > >> fix >> > >> > one particular and real bug, and not every "imaginary" use case >> that can >> > >> > just exist in the world out there. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> Hi, >> > >> there is nothing imaginary here, i just would like to point out that >> > >> due to the fact that busybox adduser program by default creates >> > >> a home dir with the same name as the user the buffer size you >> > >> propose in your fix may not be big enough to hold all the data >> > >> and that this fact will affect also other commands that use >> > >> the functions in libbbpwdgrp in subtle ways. >> > >> I of course welcome you as a contributor and by the way I have >> > >> no decisional power to accept or reject your patches (which is fine >> > >> for me), but nonetheless sometimes I disagree with you for the sake >> > >> of cleaner solutions (from my point of view). >> > >> >> > > >> > > This script disagrees with you: >> > > >> > > #!/bin/bash >> > > >> > > USERNAME='e' >> > > for i in {1..232} >> > > do >> > > USERNAME+='f' >> > > done >> > > echo $USERNAME >> > > >> > > ./busybox adduser -D $USERNAME >> > > ./busybox deluser $USERNAME >> > > >> > >> > Furthermore, I am planning to use -H for now, so I am not in any way >> > affected by this (other than -H is broken here for some reason because >> it >> > does create the home folder in /etc/passwd, but that is discussion for >> > another thread). >> Hi, >> >> --no-create-home >> Do not create the home directory, even if it doesn't exist. >> >> #adduser prova --no-create-home >> Adding user `prova' ... >> Adding new group `prova' (1005) ... >> Adding new user `prova' (1004) with group `prova' ... >> Not creating home directory `/home/prova'. >> Enter new UNIX password: >> Retype new UNIX password: >> passwd: password updated successfully >> Changing the user information for prova >> Enter the new value, or press ENTER for the default >> Full Name []: >> Room Number []: >> Work Phone []: >> Home Phone []: >> Other []: >> Is the information correct? [Y/n] y >> # grep prova /etc/passwd >> prova:x:1004:1005:,,,:/home/prova:/bin/bash >> #ls -la /home | grep prova >> >> This is the expected behaviour. Real adduser on debian does the same. >> > > Please forget about Debian's adduser when discussing it. Different > distributions have different wrappers, so it is not the main direction. In > fact, debian even has custom policies in those wrappers. I was > investigating about it, and it seems even -r (system user) is having that > passwd entry, which I personally believe _strange_ at this point. I am yet > to understand why it is done so. In my opinion, it is wrong, at least from > certain point of view because: > > * If you do not intend to create a home directory at this point, but later > manually, you will end up having the wrong entry in /etc/passwd. > > * Even if you never create a home directory, it might whisper that the > home folder was removed manually by someone. At least, this is a potential > confusion. > > I think at this point - based on my current information -, busybox could > do better than the desktop tool here. It would not be the first reasonable > separation from the desktop family (past hint: flexibility about usernames > and passwords). >
After a bit of thinking and investigation, I believe this has been a historical oversight from the GNU tool developers. Here [1] is the definition of the home entry in the /etc/passwd file: 1. *Home directory*: The absolute path to the directory the user will be in when they log in. If this directory does not exists then users directory becomes / In other words, when you do not create a home folder, it will be "/" by default, and I think that is the entry or empty should be put into the /etc/passwd file by default in such cases. When someone intends to create a home folder later for the same user without deletion and recreation, one can use usermod with the corresponding option (-d/--home) on desktop which will modify the /etc/passwd entry, too. So, I do not see any point in the default "/home/foo" put in /etc/passwd for user "foo" created intentionally without home directories. Busybox could have a helper like that later. Do you remember that I was planning to add support for changing the username before anyway? This could be tied up with that into one applet or so. I remember you had a very long and descriptive reply with your ideas, too. I think it would be much saner behavior than what the desktop util does without breaking the definition of that entry, while preserving a potentially smaller footprint, too, in that file. That is also inline with busybox's goal IMHO. [1] http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/understanding-etcpasswd-file-format/ > > Cheers, L. >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
