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
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
On 20/05/2010 22:06, I. Szczesniak wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragundcra...@sonic.net wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 inlimits.h for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the
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
Darren J Moffat darren.mof...@oracle.com 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
Roland Mainz roland.ma...@nrubsig.org 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
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:
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
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
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 limits.h as long as it documents that it
uses this macro (and __EXTENSIONS__ as defined on the
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
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
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
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
---
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 decision to
break
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.
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 inlimits.h as long as it documents that
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
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 ceasing
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
+1
-- Garrett
Darren J Moffat darr...@sac.sfbay.sun.com 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
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 time ago, I would
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
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 along
+1 even though not needed.
-- mark
On May 20, 2010, at 12:45 PM, John Forte jfo...@sac.sfbay.sun.com 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
From alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Fri May 21 10:57:07 2010
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:57:05 -0700
From: Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Subject: Re: Username length [PSARC/2010/184 FastTrack timeout
5/27/2010]
To: James Carlson carls...@workingcode.com
Cc: Nicolas
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
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 environments)
Don Cragun dcra...@sonic.net wrote:
http://www.opengroup.org/csq/view.mhtml?norationale=1noreferences=1RID=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
29 matches
Mail list logo
