delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2014/07/28/05:22:14

X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
default; b=xg8EnPrJIYcfBQy5hHvUoj9GPg6c+xv55NqxXQoaBHdeIJMH5f6oQ
+M9O8ucZOLOsc4xVOkiO3LzPtzh/PISu8s/G9s7/BUDGgTmFOwqw6OFu2oefiRl4
BWjr7zMXg0Af27qtd+EM5HVxGpn0WWudnL9thR3k0wgEiiJ8dqtlhY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
bh=xhfeezEYwwE/wh/k8DTbbylZez8=; b=NA1zM94oBLcqP+VhMUQ91L+LZgVd
Z1SM222/cHpSdxKxFDMiRF/h/R+Wmki0rdp1d8v4qjBh0a01677AGAg/9LKx9SAP
IraQO8HlTCvHXcahpsJYUnwO7UbGmOfv0dp7LfQlQseFjn7NqO/XCOWmm90dUCKw
WHhZweWteI4R3N0=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: calimero.vinschen.de
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:21:48 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: timeout in LDAP access
Message-ID: <20140728092148.GB25860@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20140707110714 DOT GJ1803 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <19B9F8D8-7FD6-4A7B-AC83-BBF8D152319D AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org> <20140709101256 DOT GD26447 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <BA09D7D8-96E6-431F-9434-8BA8A2AB4952 AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org> <20140714095107 DOT GB10401 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20140714134836 DOT GA2637 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <79A8CE40-E412-4479-B058-378823313FA8 AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org> <20140716135151 DOT GC8520 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4457DF49-B4C7-4A7C-A189-AB6F4D94794E AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org> <20140718191819 DOT GH15332 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140718191819.GH15332@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ping?

On Jul 18 21:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 17 08:33, Denis Excoffier wrote:
> > On 2014-07-16 15:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > It occured to me that there's another way to do that.  The problem
> > > you're mentioning above could be alleviated if the first Cygwin proce=
ss
> > > in a process tree fetches all POSIX offsets of all trusted domains ri=
ght
> > > at the start, rather than fetching the POSIX offsets only on demand by
> > > whatever process needs it.  This would slow down the startup of the
> > > first process slightly (one LDAP request per trusted domain, but only
> > > asking your primary DC), but this would have two advantages:
> > >=20
> > > - After fetching all POSIX offsets, we could filter out all POSIX
> > >  offsets which don't make sense.  These would be set using the fake
> > >  offset setting mechanism.  "No sense" would include offsets < 0x1100=
00
> > >  or offsets > 0xff000000.  If the first process in the tree=20
> > >=20
> > > - The UID/GID values would be stable throughout the process tree.
> > >=20
> > > - The UID/GID values would be stable systemwide when utilizing cygser=
ver.
> > >=20
> > > That's a bit of work, but Cygwin 1.7.31 will still come without this
> > > AD integration code anyway, so we still have time to turn everything
> > > upside down.
> > I buy this of course, but i=E2=80=99m still not convinced that we have =
to
> > workaround. After all, since i don=E2=80=99t care the other domains in =
my daily
> > work, i=E2=80=99m not affected at all. Most of the users will never be =
affected
> > i suppose. And if Cygwin happens to circumvent a null posixOffset by
> > providing its own, there will be even less chances for collisions and
> > for collisions being reported.
> >=20
> > But we can consider the other way and for that i will use a comparison:
> > using special characters (like =E2=80=98\n=E2=80=99) gratuitously in th=
e middle of filenames
> > is usually considered as a bad practice, but always possible by
> > doing =E2=80=98char *filename =3D "a\nb"; fopen(filename, "w")=E2=80=99=
. Now, once this
> > file is created, you can use =E2=80=98ls=E2=80=99 in the folder. Do you=
 think =E2=80=98ls'
> > should respect user decision and display the raw \n in its output or
> > try to workaround by using some substitution character (like =E2=80=98?=
=E2=80=99) in order
> > not to wrap at unexpected locations? The answer is that =E2=80=98ls=E2=
=80=99 substitutes
> > by default, but also provides a full group of related options to change=
 this
> > behavior (--quoting-style=3DWORD, --hide-control-chars).
> >=20
> > Of course, adding options (eg in nsswitch.conf) to orientate the assign=
ment
> > of posixOffsets to various substitutes would be useless. Even assigning
> > the null posixOffsets to non-null values, i=E2=80=99m not convinced of.
>=20
> We really should do that to avoid collisions with system accounts, IMHO.
>=20
> But maybe we should handle it as a border case of a border case, and
> reliably.  Rather than using the default fake mechanism, what if
> we use default offsets for the two cases:
>=20
> Case 1: posix offset is < 0x100000  =3D=3D> Enforce posix 0ffset 0xfe80000
> Case 2: posix offset can't be fetched (this points to a local user
>         having no access to this kind of domain information)
> 	=3D=3D> Enforce posix offset 0xfe000000.
>=20
> This would result in potential collisions in very rare border cases,
> but it would result in reliable mappings throught all processes.
> And, the complexity would be quite small.

any feedback on this one?  Shall I create a snapshot with a matching
patch?


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=H7X4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y--

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019