On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
file.
Eeeuw! :-)
I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one
or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:39:16 -0400, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
file.
Eeeuw! :-)
I'm not in favour of this idea, but issuing a single warning for one
or more UID's encountered isn't behaviour that would make retrofitting
Mike Smith writes:
v2 NFS doesn't support UIDs 65535, and UIDs around that number are
magic to it as well. There are serious security issues here (files
will appear to be owned by the wrong user).
Hmm, isn't this a separate bug in itself (unrelated to pwd_mkdb)?
Ie, somewhere in the kernel
I'd be in favor of adding a /etc/pwd_mkdb.conf or some similar
file.
...
While warnings and error messages should give me enough information
to address a problem efficiently (something on the wishlist of any
Wintendo administrator), once I know there is more than zero potentially
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for every
encountered UID greater that 65535 ?
How many times do I have to go through this?
There is no "artificial
On 30 Jul 1999 15:38:30 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
How many times do I have to go through this?
Until I stuff a comment in the source that explains this. :-)
There is no "artificial limitation in pwd_mkdb". pwd_mkdb warns
against UIDs larger than 65535 because legacy software that
Sheldon Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you be happy with changing things so that only one warning is
generated? Something like "9 max_uid 65535: others may exist"? The
current behaviour is quite annoying with large passwd files. :-)
Sure, and maybe modify the warning to say
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
themselves in for, or at the very least that there
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
as (uid_t)0 - 1;
Excellent.
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for every
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to bleat for every
encountered UID greater that 65535 ?
How many times do I have to go through this?
There is no artificial
On 30 Jul 1999 15:38:30 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
How many times do I have to go through this?
Until I stuff a comment in the source that explains this. :-)
There is no artificial limitation in pwd_mkdb. pwd_mkdb warns
against UIDs larger than 65535 because legacy software that
Sheldon Hearn sheld...@uunet.co.za writes:
Would you be happy with changing things so that only one warning is
generated? Something like 9 max_uid 65535: others may exist? The
current behaviour is quite annoying with large passwd files. :-)
Sure, and maybe modify the warning to say
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:53:56 MST, Mike Smith wrote:
It probably belongs in param.h, and you can probably safely calculate it
as (uid_t)0 - 1;
Excellent.
Another question I should have asked in my original mail is this: are
there magical reasons why we should want pwd_mkdb to
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 09:13:52AM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Mike Smith remarked
I think that the administrator should be forced to override the warning
manually to indicate that they are aware of the issues they are getting
themselves in for, or at the very least that there
Hi folks,
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or
Hi folks,
I've come up empty-handed hunting for a constant that defines the
maximum UID supported by the system. I'm working on our passwd and
pwd_mkdb stuff and want to get rid of the artificial limitation of 65535
(USHRT_MAX) imposed in (at least) pwd_mkdb.
Have I missed a useful define, or
20 matches
Mail list logo
