On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 06:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 06:40:06PM +0100, Simo wrote: > > Great! > > So, do we want this in 3.0 ? Andrew, can you give an > assessment of how invasive/non-invasive this change > is (I would imagine it's ok, but then I haven't checked > out the changes yet :-) :-).
They are actually pretty sane - I'm not a great fan of passing extra optional parameters all over the place, but this lot isn't too bad. The whole 'user_ok()' thing needs to be reworked at some point. > Great fix though ! Thanks ! I'll merge this and my other smbd-side changes after I chase down a malloc()/free() related crash I saw when I put current CVS on my systems at Hawker. I'm intending to merge my client-side NTLMSSP/NTLMv2 code shortly, but I need to chase down why I get a 'NO_USER_SESSION_KEY' on an 'net rpc join' to a Win2k DC doing NTLMv2. We have had similar issues in the reverse direction before, so it should not be too hard to get right. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
