On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 21:59 +, Andrew Talbot wrote:
diff --git a/dlls/msi/action.c b/dlls/msi/action.c
index 076d1b3..677a43f 100644
--- a/dlls/msi/action.c
+++ b/dlls/msi/action.c
@@ -6763,7 +6763,7 @@ static UINT ACTION_RemoveODBC( MSIPACKAGE *package )
#define ENV_MOD_PREFIX
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23306
Your paranoid
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23310
Your paranoid
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jeremy Allison j...@samba.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:49:49PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
Pavel Shilovsky pias...@etersoft.ru wrote:
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
change can
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Steve French smfre...@gmail.com wrote:
although I could not find the same level of detail that MS-FSA
provides (e.g. see section 2.14.10 for the detailed
Typo It is section 2.1.4.10
--
Thanks,
Steve
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky pias...@etersoft.ru:
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
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 09:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky pias...@etersoft.ru:
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
change can benefit cifs and nfs modules.
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:37:45AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 09:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky pias...@etersoft.ru:
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:26:28PM +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
I suspect that WINE would have the same need
Tricky - Wine needs to enforce this behaviour solely between Wine and
the file server, Trying to muck up non emulated local behaviour would be
a bad mistake.
One way perhaps to look at this is you want some tasks to be able to *opt
in* to this
Christoph Hellwig писал 07.12.2012 20:16:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:26:28PM +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
The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
can try to prevent them by:
1) specifying an extra security bit on the file that indicates that
share flags are accepted (like we have for mandatory locks now) and
setting it for neccessary files only, or
2) adding a
-Original Message-
From: linux-nfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-nfs-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Shilovsky
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:43 PM
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: linux-c...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
fsde...@vger.kernel.org;
Op 04-12-12 17:26, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com schreef:
Hi,
Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Alsa's native period is ~ 22ms (1024 samples / 44100 or 48000) with dmix
despite claiming it to be otherwise..
What I don't understand is why you talk about ALSA at this level. DSound talks
to
On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
This is a bug in clang. There is no null pointer dereference.
Afair gcc tried to pull this trick too but got educated about their error.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:43:14AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
can try to prevent them by:
1) specifying an extra security bit on the file that indicates that
share flags are accepted (like we have for mandatory locks now)
16 matches
Mail list logo