At 08:57 PM 11/14/2002 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> is_grp_member() calls getgroups32() only for the current user and
>> scans passwd and group otherwise, trying to be more efficient.
>
>Btw., it "feels" faster now to call ls -
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:21:05PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> is_grp_member() calls getgroups32() only for the current user and
> scans passwd and group otherwise, trying to be more efficient.
Btw., it "feels" faster now to call ls -l...
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:23:23PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:03:24PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > If you are emulated, you already have the token in the cygheap->user.
> > There is no need to open the thread, see how it's done e.g.in setegid.
>
> Good point
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:03:24PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> If you are emulated, you already have the token in the cygheap->user.
> There is no need to open the thread, see how it's done e.g.in setegid.
Good point.
> You want to know if the file owner uid is in the group of the file gid.
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:30:01AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Isn't the impersonation token automatically read by OpenProcessToken()
> > > when an impersonation took place?
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> I just had another look int
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:30:01AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Isn't the impersonation token automatically read by OpenProcessToken()
> > when an impersonation took place?
>
> I don't think so.
I just had another look into MSDN and AFAICS, we would have to call
O
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
Hello, Corinna
>
> Isn't the impersonation token automatically read by OpenProcessToken()
> when an impersonation took place?
I don't think so.
> > Thus I suggest that we use the method of the patch for now, and think
> > of improving is_grp_member if/as we get specifi
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:35:09PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> I would say that the comparison (on your example) of the existing method
> and the current patch show that the current patch better reflects the
> "reality", because it only tries to do so when the actual current token
> groups
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:32:31PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > It doesn't add any overhead which isn't already there.
> >
> If "already" is before the patch, it scans the group file instead of scanning
> the token groups. If "already" is after the patch, it scans
