On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:31:30PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > At 07:06 PM 6/3/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:57:40PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > >> a) keep lookup_name() as it is? > >> b) remove it entirely? > > > >I think b) is the way to go. IMHO we should deprecate using ntsec > >w/o SID in the passwd/group files. > > Here it is. Lots of trivial changes. Tested by running chown.
Hi Pierre, would you mind to look over that again? I've just rearranged reading passwd and group files and found an easy method to have useful passwd and group info including SIDs even if both files are unavailable. This slightly changes the way we could handle that situation. We're not necessarily requiring these files for a working ntsec now and AFAICS, this results in a different state of the lookup_name function. However, I think calling lookup_name is somewhat useless. If a process can't read it's own token, something's really broken (and this is in retrospect the reason you investigated in changing the security stuff). I'm sorry to step in that late. I hope you're not too frustrated... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.