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:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Rwpjwn1u08Xsy/dt
	QY39CTSfN98Fps8sY6BkD62puJ4Z08kgsZKMB7/oyReBaOKIp8sCGY4nsuai4FMY
	W+b6h1CxtMgcSmIRFxar+pVUz8NeTgQWkGcO3NoQuMVx1kYV0JoXWrxf/G6OD7qM
	I0uB5flcJavwPPyXoUfBggg2ihY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:38:14 +0400
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon@yandex.ru>
Reply-To: Andrey Repin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Message-ID: <164742880.20140213223814@mtu-net.ru>
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>, cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: get rid of getpwent?
In-Reply-To: <87eh369a24.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
References: <52F92D58.9030408@etr-usa.com> <52F95D1D.4050108@tiscali.co.uk> <4510121021.20140211062515@mtu-net.ru> <52FAB14C.8060800@tiscali.co.uk> <52FABAF5.2060701@etr-usa.com> <52FAD730.9090507@redhat.com> <20140212090804.GM2821@calimero.vinschen.de> <52FB9E51.7030607@cornell.edu> <20140212195931.GA2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <20140212213729.GA5589@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140213100025.GB24159@calimero.vinschen.de> <87eh369a24.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Greetings, Achim Gratz!

> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> Caching is wonderful for the usual requests for single entries from the
>> DB, and for this we have already two caches, the LSA cache and Cygwin's
>> own cache.  But caching doesn't help at all when enumerating.

> Would it be possible to only look (for user name completion purposes) at
> the current user plus whatever is in %SystemDrive%\Users

Assuming, the mentioned directory at all exists... And contain relevant
data... And the data is full... and not redundant... Too many assumptions to
work from.

> plus whatever is found in /etc/passwd?
> That way no beans are spilled about domain users that couldn't be gleaned
> from the local file system and in almost all cases that's the list one would
> want to complete from anyway. 

You have to know, how easy it is to confuse a user, who expect a file system
being solid source of security-related information.
Starting from profiles of nonexistent accounts, and down to relocated profiles
and complete absence of the directory in question at all.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@yandex.ru) 13.02.2014, <22:34>

Sorry for my terrible english...