On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:33:29PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > I'm confused; why would a userspace application need to be able to
> > > request this behavior?
> >
> > This isn't my proposal Ted, I'm just commenting on it :-).
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:33:29PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > I'm confused; why would a userspace application need to be able to
> > request this behavior?
>
> This isn't my proposal Ted, I'm just commenting on it :-).
Ah, sorry, I thought was coming from the Samba team. :-)
Hmm... I see
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:31:33PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> > And this is where things get really ugly of course :-).
> >
> > For the CIFSFS client they're expecting to be able to
> > just ship them to a Windows server, wh
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> And this is where things get really ugly of course :-).
>
> For the CIFSFS client they're expecting to be able to
> just ship them to a Windows server, where they'll
> get the (insane) Windows semantics. These semantics
> are not
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:57:52AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:49:49PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
> > Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> >
> > > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> > > change can benef
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:49:49PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
> Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
>
> > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> > change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for
> > network filesystem
Dear sir,
I am installing wine 1.3 from source file but i getting fail to
install beacose of Xlib/xfree86 devlopnemt packeg so i neet that
packege please help me.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network
> filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problems
>
Qian Hong writes:
> dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 17 +++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
It's causing a test failure:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M gdiplus.dll -T ../../.. -p
gdiplus_test.exe.so font.c && touch font.ok
font.c:400: Test failed: Expected 0,
This patch adds 3 flags:
1) O_DENYREAD that doesn't permit read access
2) O_DENYWRITE that doesn't permit write access
3) O_DENYDELETE that doesn't permit delete or rename
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags -
this change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this
forcemand mount option now lets us use Windows mandatory style of
byte-range locks even if server supports posix ones - switches on
Windows locking mechanism. Share flags is another locking mehanism
provided by Windows semantic that can be used by NT_CREATE_ANDX
command. This patch combines all Win
Make CIFSSMBOpen take share_flags as a parm that allows us
to pass new O_DENY* flags to the server.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky
---
fs/cifs/cifsacl.c | 10 ++
fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 11 ++-
fs/cifs/cifsproto.h |9 +
fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 47 +
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network
filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problems
(e.g. when a user process can deny root to delete a file).
Share fl
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Qian Hong wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>>
>> 'face' and 'family' are leaked here. Also returning FALSE at this point
>> is too late since both 'face' and 'family' are already in the linked lists.
>
> Thanks for
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 12:56 +0100, André Hentschel wrote:
> diff --git a/dlls/schannel/tests/main.c b/dlls/schannel/tests/main.c
> index b576848..9c28e8b 100644
> --- a/dlls/schannel/tests/main.c
> +++ b/dlls/schannel/tests/main.c
> @@ -179,8 +179,8 @@ static void testGetInfo(void)
> /* First
Alex Henrie writes:
> 2012/12/5 Alexandre Julliard :
>> You have nowhere near enough tests to make such a claim. When I said to
>> write more tests, I didn't mean one or two more. You'd probably need at
>> least 100 tests to have decent coverage of all the interesting cases.
>
> It's not as much
16 matches
Mail list logo