Re: Group not working properly
Graham Leggett wrote: Hi all, While testing mod_ldap, I noticed it was creating a shared memory file like so: [minfrin@jessica httpd-2.0]$ ls -al /tmp/mod_ldap_cache -rw-r--r--1 nobody 42949672954 Jan 22 14:09 /tmp/mod_ldap_cache As others mentioned, that big number has the same representation as 32-bit -1. I checked a couple of systems and gid_t is unsigned 32-bit there, and Apache treats the number as gid_t internally. The user can code that big unsigned number for group if they want to. Operationally, the right thing happens either way; there is no bug. Perhaps some people would rather see Group #4294967295 instead of Group #-1 in the default config file? I prefer the second flavor actually (historical (i.e., google-able) and more concise).
Re: Group not working properly
Jeff Trawick wrote: As others mentioned, that big number has the same representation as 32-bit -1. I checked a couple of systems and gid_t is unsigned 32-bit there, and Apache treats the number as gid_t internally. The user can code that big unsigned number for group if they want to. Operationally, the right thing happens either way; there is no bug. Is it possible to put a warning in there, because 4294967295 looks wrong. Regards, Graham -- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight...
Re: Group not working properly
Graham Leggett wrote: User nobody Group #-1 I am not sure whether #-1 is being interpreted as 4294967295, or if this figure comes from some area of not-previously-initialised variable. Anyone know what is going on? Forgot to mention - this is v2.0.45-dev. Regards, Graham -- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight...
Re: Group not working properly
Graham Leggett wrote: Hi all, While testing mod_ldap, I noticed it was creating a shared memory file like so: [minfrin@jessica httpd-2.0]$ ls -al /tmp/mod_ldap_cache -rw-r--r--1 nobody 42949672954 Jan 22 14:09 /tmp/mod_ldap_cache The groupid is set to 4294967295 - which is bogus. The default config file says (said) this: User nobody Group #-1 I am not sure whether #-1 is being interpreted as 4294967295, or if this figure comes from some area of not-previously-initialised variable. -1, when assigned to unsigned int of 32 bit, is indeed interpreted as 4294967295 (i.e. 2^32=4294967295+1). May be the result of a wrong cast of signed to unsigned. -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: Group not working properly
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Graham Leggett wrote: I am not sure whether #-1 is being interpreted as 4294967295, or if Sure. 4294967295 = (2^32 - 1). :-)
Re: Group not working properly
Graham Leggett wrote: Hi all, While testing mod_ldap, I noticed it was creating a shared memory file like so: [minfrin@jessica httpd-2.0]$ ls -al /tmp/mod_ldap_cache -rw-r--r--1 nobody 42949672954 Jan 22 14:09 /tmp/mod_ldap_cache The groupid is set to 4294967295 - which is bogus. The default config file says (said) this: User nobody Group #-1 That #-1 has caused me grief before when testing just the httpd core on some platforms (OS/390? Linux? FreeBSD?...can't remember). I'd prefer to replace it if we had a more portable alternative. Greg
RE: Group not working properly
FWIW, on AIX 4.3.3 I had to change it to Group nobody -Original Message- From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Group not working properly Graham Leggett wrote: Hi all, While testing mod_ldap, I noticed it was creating a shared memory file like so: [minfrin@jessica httpd-2.0]$ ls -al /tmp/mod_ldap_cache -rw-r--r--1 nobody 42949672954 Jan 22 14:09 /tmp/mod_ldap_cache The groupid is set to 4294967295 - which is bogus. The default config file says (said) this: User nobody Group #-1 That #-1 has caused me grief before when testing just the httpd core on some platforms (OS/390? Linux? FreeBSD?...can't remember). I'd prefer to replace it if we had a more portable alternative. Greg
