> > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
> > file.
...
> While warnings and error messages should give me enough information
> to address a problem efficiently (something on the wishlist of any
> Wintendo administrator), once I know there is more than zero potentially
Mike Smith writes:
> v2 NFS doesn't support UIDs > 65535, and UIDs around that number are
> magic to it as well. There are serious security issues here (files
> will appear to be owned by the wrong user).
Hmm, isn't this a separate bug in itself (unrelated to pwd_mkdb)?
Ie, somewhere in the ker
> > I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
> > file.
...
> While warnings and error messages should give me enough information
> to address a problem efficiently (something on the wishlist of any
> Wintendo administrator), once I know there is more than zero potentiall
Mike Smith writes:
> v2 NFS doesn't support UIDs > 65535, and UIDs around that number are
> magic to it as well. There are serious security issues here (files
> will appear to be owned by the wrong user).
Hmm, isn't this a separate bug in itself (unrelated to pwd_mkdb)?
Ie, somewhere in the ke
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
> file.
Eeeuw! :-)
I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one
or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
> file.
Eeeuw! :-)
I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one
or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
> that Mike Smith remarked
> >
> > I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
> > manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
> that Mike Smith remarked
> >
> > I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
> > manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are gettin
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
>
> I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
> manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
> themselves in for, or at the very least that there sh
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
>
> I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
> manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
> themselves in for, or at the very least that there s
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
> > as (uid_t)0 - 1;
>
> Excellent.
>
> Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
> there magical reasons why we should want pwd_
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
> > as (uid_t)0 - 1;
>
> Excellent.
>
> Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
> there magical reasons why we should want pwd
Sheldon Hearn writes:
> Would you be happy with changing things so that only one warning is
> generated? Something like "9 > max_uid 65535: others may exist"? The
> current behaviour is quite annoying with large passwd files. :-)
Sure, and maybe modify the warning to say something like "legac
On 30 Jul 1999 15:38:30 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> How many times do I have to go through this?
Until I stuff a comment in the source that explains this. :-)
> There is no "artificial limitation in pwd_mkdb". pwd_mkdb warns
> against UIDs larger than 65535 because legacy software that
Sheldon Hearn writes:
> Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
> there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for every
> encountered UID greater that 65535 ?
How many times do I have to go through this?
There is no "artificial limitation in pwd_mkdb"
Sheldon Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you be happy with changing things so that only one warning is
> generated? Something like "9 > max_uid 65535: others may exist"? The
> current behaviour is quite annoying with large passwd files. :-)
Sure, and maybe modify the warning to say s
On 30 Jul 1999 15:38:30 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> How many times do I have to go through this?
Until I stuff a comment in the source that explains this. :-)
> There is no "artificial limitation in pwd_mkdb". pwd_mkdb warns
> against UIDs larger than 65535 because legacy software tha
Sheldon Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
> there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for every
> encountered UID greater that 65535 ?
How many times do I have to go through this?
There is no "artificial lim
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
> It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
> as (uid_t)0 - 1;
Excellent.
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for ever
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
> It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
> as (uid_t)0 - 1;
Excellent.
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for eve
>
> I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
> maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
> pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
> (USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
>
> Have I missed a useful define, or
>
> I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
> maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
> pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
> (USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
>
> Have I missed a useful define, o
Hi folks,
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or sh
Hi folks,
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or s
24 matches
Mail list logo
