X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.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=VjjYcneFIHjapYRsFy4dyuMLIkK0GsS2a6obrjGjMWeucN3QAmxfK
	DjOpMGXL1gb7itRBVpaXS8XKg8O2PxyGsbcalaiaBlZplbejgWS8kKRdnM4CQVZj
	QuF4OJQ3srXfZFT7TAuNYLo4wK8sv2Gq/Yzs/i/VaCcszvwvcKYCrs=
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=35hau9NFZD7Kliul+BBdgtXldbA=; b=Fz50LhS3483pc9LYAmZCjgT4e77d
	0vkeqWnzOK8s0nKT2LZb9g059SoJlgIx7wktevRLm5+nnxpgzBplVvHlOsA5LXGr
	5ueGrUM8GHU1l9DBLu8gWaGuHCHvH0YrK8PFyzbSr1eA0LxYDkgJ0PK8TxubSMpI
	uw0H6UzX4GTkR0A=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:46:33 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Testers needed:  New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
Message-ID: <20140227134632.GG2246@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20140225200414.GA4238@calimero.vinschen.de> <87y50zaqjb.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20140225215423.GA6065@calimero.vinschen.de> <loom.20140226T085959-119@post.gmane.org> <20140226100209.GR2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <20140226135222.GW2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <loom.20140227T095414-414@post.gmane.org> <loom.20140227T100638-8@post.gmane.org> <20140227094951.GD2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <loom.20140227T134714-188@post.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rQfmhCPYrIx9zeBl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <loom.20140227T134714-188@post.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

--rQfmhCPYrIx9zeBl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 27 12:54, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes:
> > 1 second?  That sounds still a bit slow.  Considering that I'm now
> > member of 414 groups, and you are member of 440 groups, the extra number
> > of groups cannot account for that.
> >
> >  This sounds surprisingly as if the
> > names of some of your groups are not cached on your machine.  Or
> > something.  Or is this a rather slow machine?!?
>=20=20
> It's not a slow machine by any means, but it certainly gets its fair share
> of security policies, so it may have something to do with that.  I don't =
know.
>=20
> > Still, it seems like the right thing to do to drop the group name
> > configuration stuff entirely.
>=20
> Yes (unless you'd want to make it configurable like the getpwent stuff).

Nah, not really.  As I said, I'm questioning some of the old functionality
anyway, and the less we have to ask AD the better for us.

I applied my patch which removes this group name change facility from AD
and uploaded a new snapshot to http://cygwin.com/snapshots/.

While we're at it, I just had this weird idea.

What if, as soon as the first Cygwin process in a process tree starts,
this process not only caches the primary group info, but also caches all
supplementary groups from the user's token?  This would slow down
startup of the first process slightly, but it would speed up any
subsequent request for group information of a group in the user's token.
An `id' call would be almost instant, and `ls' calls would probably be
faster as well.

As always, there's a trade-off: Users running cygwin processes from CMD
a lot would encounter a slowdown.

What do you think, guys?


Corinna

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

--rQfmhCPYrIx9zeBl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

--rQfmhCPYrIx9zeBl--