Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote: I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other ABI breakage. If I remember correctly, an opinion needs

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 20/05/2010 21:45, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:42:30PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: In any case, customers that require strict SysV ABI compliance (e.g., customers that have apps that use LOGNAME_MAX and/or L_cuserid and who cannot or will not

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 20/05/2010 22:06, I. Szczesniak wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragun wrote: The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in for so long is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value. Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the edges for a few years. Si

Re: Username legnth [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 2/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 20/05/2010 18:50, Roland Mainz wrote: Solaris currently documents a maximum username length of 8 characters in passwd(4). Erm... AFAIK this should be _bytes_, not characters. Characters would be multibyte characters in this context with the small twist that It is a effectively a 'char user

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
Don Cragun wrote: > According to the Solaris 10 limits.h(3HEAD) man page, LOGNAME_MAX is an > invariant value defined in . It is described there as: > "The maximum number of bytes supported in a user's login name." > > So it is perfectly legitimate for a Solaris 10 application to define >

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote: > > I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the > > ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break > > the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other ABI breakage. If >

Re: Username legnth [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 2/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
Roland Mainz wrote: > I would give this case (if I could) a +1 with two minor changes: > 1. "useradd" should clamp the string to 32bytes but _validate_ that > the input username doesn't get any multibyte characters cut-off in the > middle. As we are in the 21st century, we could even support lon

Re: Username legnth [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 2/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 10:53, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Roland Mainz wrote: I would give this case (if I could) a +1 with two minor changes: 1. "useradd" should clamp the string to 32bytes but _validate_ that the input username doesn't get any multibyte characters cut-off in the middle

PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil [PSARC/2010/188 FastTrack timeout 05/28/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote: >> I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the >> ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break >> the ABIs and that it does not set a precedent for other ABI b

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 12:15, James Carlson wrote: On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote: On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote: I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decision to break the ABIs and that it does

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
On 05/20/10 22:51, Don Cragun wrote: > Since it is defined in the Solaris 10 limits.h(3HEAD) man page, a > "Conforming POSIX Application Using Extensions" is free to use > LOGNAME_MAX as defined in as long as it documents that it > uses this macro (and __EXTENSIONS__ as defined on the standards(5)

Re: Kernel Keyboard Configuration in SMF [PSARC/2010/183 FastTrack timeout 05/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Felix Feng
On 05/20/10 16:57, Rainer Orth wrote: Frank Che writes: Exported Interfaces === NameCommitment Comments --- keymap Committed keyboard configu

Re: Kernel Keyboard Configuration in SMF [PSARC/2010/183 FastTrack timeout 05/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Felix Feng
Frank Che wrote: 3. Modify existing /etc/default/kbd consumers, so that they operate on SMF property instead of the file. The following consumer was found in ON gate kbd(1) - usr/src/cmd/kbd/kbd.c For this consumer, file /etc/default/kbd is only referred in this usage: kbd -i [

Re: Kernel Keyboard Configuration in SMF [PSARC/2010/183 FastTrack timeout 05/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Felix Feng
I think this is a good change. But I'd like to see more sample values for the valid values of these properties -- the type of astring is a bit .. hmm... non-specific. (And furthermore, perhaps some of the values should actually take more specifically typed data, e.g. numbers or booleans? Hi

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 12:20, James Carlson wrote: On 05/20/10 22:51, Don Cragun wrote: Since it is defined in the Solaris 10 limits.h(3HEAD) man page, a "Conforming POSIX Application Using Extensions" is free to use LOGNAME_MAX as defined in as long as it documents that it uses this macro (and __EXTENS

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 09:55, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: I recommend to look into the Solaris sources and fix the parts that still historically or by accident as in ./lib/libsec/common/acltext.c use a lower limit. Thanks Joerg, that was one I hadn't found yet in my testing since I hadn'

Re: interfaces for basic install network configuration [PSARC/2010/164 FastTrack timeout 05/19/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Erik Nordmark
On 05/19/10 10:51 AM, James Carlson wrote: Moving forward we have a set of work in the area of networking configuration that spans the range from how servers are typically configured to the problems NWAM set out to solve. The reason to structure things that way is exactly to avoid the problems y

Re: layer-3 net properties for exclusive-IP zones [PSARC/2010/166 FastTrack timeout 05/19/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Erik Nordmark
On 05/20/10 06:07 AM, sowmini.varad...@oracle.com wrote: If all we want is to keep the origin clear, that can be done by simply setting an address flag (IFF_FROM_GZ) on addresses added by ipmgmtd, and using that to print output in show-addr. But we discussed some more complex issues on the phone

Re: PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil [PSARC/2010/188 FastTrack timeout 05/28/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Gary Winiger
> We need only one function for parsing the URI, all other helper > functions are static. The function takes a string with the PKCS#11 URI > and fills up a structure allocated by the caller. > > int pkcs11_parse_uri(const char *str, pkcs11_uri_t *uri); > Interface Stability > --

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 21/05/2010 12:15, James Carlson wrote: >> On 05/21/10 04:18, Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> On 20/05/2010 21:37, Don Cragun wrote: I'm not disagreeing with the move to 32 bytes. I just believe that the ARC needs to make it clear that doing so is a conscious decisi

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote: The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least inside those conforming environments) means either re-doing the branding or ceasing to be "UNIX" in that sense

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 21/05/2010 12:20, James Carlson wrote: >> On 05/20/10 22:51, Don Cragun wrote: >>> Since it is defined in the Solaris 10 limits.h(3HEAD) man page, a >>> "Conforming POSIX Application Using Extensions" is free to use >>> LOGNAME_MAX as defined in as long as it documents

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Doug Leavitt
Just FYI: I can confirm what Bill points out below. Solaris naming services does not intentionally impose a limits on the length of username (or any other variable length strings like gecos etc.). NIS currently still has a 4k buffer max, so a NIS passwd entry total length has that upwards boun

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote: >> The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked >> into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least >> inside those conforming environments) means either re-doing the branding >> or

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 16:48, James Carlson wrote: I'm certainly not saying "don't do it." In fact, I want to see it happen. Nor am I trying to slow it down. I just want it done _right_. Until such time as an ARC member derails it and asks for it to be voted on it is being done right. -- Darren J

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
James Carlson wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: > > On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote: > >> The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked > >> into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least > >> inside those conforming environments) means e

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 21/05/2010 16:58, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: LOGNAME_MAX is documented as a public committed interface in limits.h(3HEAD). How do you deal with that? LOGNAME_MAX is not part of the standard. As Solaris removed "utmp" and "wtmp" a long time ago, I would guess that it can be

Re: PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil [PSARC/2010/188 FastTrack timeout 05/28/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Garrett D'Amore
+1 -- Garrett Darren J Moffat wrote: > >Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI >This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All >rights reserved. >1. Introduction >1.1. Project/Component Working Name: >PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil >

Re: Kernel Keyboard Configuration in SMF [PSARC/2010/183 FastTrack timeout 05/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Garrett D'Amore
Does it make sense to use some special value (zero or -1) to mean uninitialized? That way could at least preserve the type. -- Garrett Felix Feng wrote: >> I think this is a good change. But I'd like to see more sample values >> for the valid values of these properties -- the type of astr

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread James Carlson
Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 21/05/2010 16:58, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: >>> LOGNAME_MAX is documented as a public committed interface in >>> limits.h(3HEAD). How do you deal with that? >> >> LOGNAME_MAX is not part of the standard. >> >> As Solaris removed "utmp" and "wtmp" a long

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 05:07:54PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > I don't see anywhere on limits.h(3HEAD) that says we won't change > the value of LOGNAME_MAX it is the name that would be the Committed > interface not the value of it. > > LOGNAME_MAX is listed in the "Other Invariant Values" sect

Re: Kernel Keyboard Configuration in SMF [PSARC/2010/183 FastTrack timeout 05/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Antonello Cruz
On 05/21/10 09:19 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Does it make sense to use some special value (zero or -1) to mean uninitialized? That way could at least preserve the type. Or a missing property could mean uninitialized. BTW, integer means you can have negative values. Counter are for only posit

Re: Username legnth [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 2/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Bart Smaalders
On 20/05/2010 18:50, Roland Mainz wrote: > tools like Solaris's tools like "useradd" always restricted this to > the ASCII character set while many sites allow (by using their own set > of tools) non-ASCII usernames (e.g. German umlauts are commonly used > on German university sites and some japan

case note for PSARC/2009/593 IPoIB Connected Mode

2010-05-21 Thread Ted H. Kim
Folks, Here is a minor amendment to an already approved case. I am filing this as a "case note", but in case anyone thinks this needs a real fasttrack, please pipe up, and I will re-file it as such. In PSARC/2009/593 IPoIB Connected Mode, the case said S10 would default to Datagram Mode by not d

Re: Username legnth [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 2/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:05:50AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: > On 20/05/2010 18:50, Roland Mainz wrote: > > IMO this case should either allow the use of multibyte characters or > > expcitly refer to bytes/ASCII characters (see below). > > Since there is no way of storing encoding information al

Obsolete Jakarta Tomcat 4 Interfaces In Solaris 10 [PSARC/2010/189 Self Review]

2010-05-21 Thread Suhasini Peddada
I am sponsoring this closed approved automatic case for Lukas Rovensky. It Obsoletes Jakarta Tomcat 4 Interfaces In Solaris 10 and the release binding is patch. If anyone thinks this doesn't qualify for self review, then I'll convert it to a fasttrack. Thanks, -Suha Template Version: @(#)onepag

Re: SMF enhancements for zfs-based ndmp backup [PSARC/2010/186 Self Review]

2010-05-21 Thread Mark A Carlson
+1 even though not needed. -- mark On May 20, 2010, at 12:45 PM, John Forte wrote: > I am sponsoring this closed approved automatic case for Janice Chang. It adds > one SMF property to an already approved fasttrack (PSARC 2010/048). Binding > is minor. PSARC 2010/048 was originally submitted

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Alan Coopersmith
James Carlson wrote: > Just for the sake of sanity, I'd like to see a rule limiting > system-supplied names to 8 characters, at least for a while. In the best Postelian tradition of "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." and in the spirit of the many other "not this ca

Re: case note for PSARC/2009/593 IPoIB Connected Mode

2010-05-21 Thread Ted H. Kim
In Nevada (snv_139), it was already replaced by Brussels. But you are right, the team doesn't intend to backport the Brussels stuff. So the .conf file becomes "committed" for S10. -ted James Gates wrote: In the original case, ibd.conf was classified as 'volatile' for Nevada (because it's expec

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Gary Winiger
> From alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Fri May 21 10:57:07 2010 > Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:57:05 -0700 > From: Alan Coopersmith > Subject: Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout > 5/27/2010] > To: James Carlson > Cc: Nicolas Williams , psarc-...@sun.com, > Don Cragun

Re: PSARC 2009/585 EOF of graph and spline

2010-05-21 Thread Garrett D'Amore
Ok, so I would like to formally request that this case be restarted as a regular EOF of the associated graph and spline utilities. If it is approved, then I'll also deliver the GNU plotutils to /contrib, at the time that I submit a request to remove the ancient portions from ON. (I'll be goin

Re: case note for PSARC/2009/593 IPoIB Connected Mode

2010-05-21 Thread James Gates
In the original case, ibd.conf was classified as 'volatile' for Nevada (because it's expected to be replaced by switching to Brussels). That classification isn't appropriate for S10 if you intend to keep ibd.conf as the only configuration interface (which I assume is the case). So it's classif

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Don Cragun
On May 21, 2010, at 16:30:01 +0100, darr...@opensolaris.org wrote: > On 21/05/2010 16:19, James Carlson wrote: >> The second is the standards group branding issue. The value 9 is baked >> into the UNIX98 and UNIX03 reference materials, so changing it (at least >> inside those conforming environme

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
Don Cragun wrote: > http://www.opengroup.org/csq/view.mhtml?norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=sun%2FSD1%2F7 > specifies that the minimum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9 and the > maximum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9. So, making the changes proposed > in this case require one of the following: > 1.

Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout 5/27/2010]

2010-05-21 Thread Don Cragun
On May 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Don Cragun wrote: > >> http://www.opengroup.org/csq/view.mhtml?norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=sun%2FSD1%2F7 >> specifies that the minimum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9 and the >> maximum value of LOGIN_NAME_MAX is 9. So, making the changes

Timer reset: PSARC/2009/585: EOF of graph and spline: fast-track timeout 05/28/2010

2010-05-21 Thread Alan Coopersmith
At Garrett's request I've reset the status of the case to "waiting fast-track 05/28/2010". -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System ___ opensolaris-arc mailing list o

Re: Timer reset: PSARC/2009/585: EOF of graph and spline: fast-track timeout 05/28/2010

2010-05-21 Thread Garrett D'Amore
On 5/21/2010 9:05 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: At Garrett's request I've reset the status of the case to "waiting fast-track 05/28/2010". Thanks. The rationale here is that meaty substance has already been discussed/reviewed before. What's different is that we won't be delivering GNU pl