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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=IpwfxSISxEvvrX+0W+MoBPh9J6yq
	75E19+jy5l2QjBCF9J0jzWLeL+epQW4brcOo55UTJsRAdbgbqjEIrwDKKMkLABir
	SuoKtGClvSmtS+u8FRfETjQe874basjYsIZuZh3hOYma+fbeKrcst/tHf5UbeZxt
	N35Ys/c3ddnshf4=
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:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; s=default; bh=27YrrA7Ue664CcLsgrAxSHsfRog=; b=xK
	4jeeBK6nybNh9YyEcWu3WjdB+noBw1PNeVniVW7H28PrCXyg5UPHOheoxlG0TXEr
	0JeroizgfVA70X0PFQ4TnPoZKu9/yJuYeGJzdqbarmjfD6kx4ei+B8/snEQ2xEpz
	W7xeceoHRf/+EpeE0N2MYdwbC49OTR9LNoC0szDz4=
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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	smtp1-g21.free.fr
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject:	Re: timeout in LDAP access
From:	Denis Excoffier <cygwin AT Denis-Excoffier DOT org>
In-Reply-To:	<20140728092148.GB25860@calimero.vinschen.de>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:51:23 +0200
Message-Id:	<A2AD8ABB-C485-4ED0-B897-E6DAE7FD630E@Denis-Excoffier.org>
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> <20140728092148 DOT GB25860 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 2014-07-28 11:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Ping?
> 
> On Jul 18 21:18, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 
>> We really should do that to avoid collisions with system accounts, IMHO.
>> 
>> 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:
>> 
>> Case 1: posix offset is < 0x100000  ==> 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)
>> 	==> Enforce posix offset 0xfe000000.
>> 
>> 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?
I have nothing to add except that i am a great fan of cygwin snapshots in
general, and i suppose that if several posix offsets are set to 0, it is
a minor problem if all of them get replaced by the same 0xfe80000.

Regards,

Denis Excoffier.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -