DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=CMbO6NmQ101x+iF4rIVMewi0lUNfqd/dcBINxNKRpc9
	1mWZ9q+weLzzJj4vbZmoi6RrgOCDgU6kz5BWkfWTa5L0/IYrg/hy5lwswBCPLJ6w
	O0+audeIk6W8RAS4CmvfrtPpO3f/vQhsLH0di3giayZ0aD0BKQR0iJ8FgKtiSIeY
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <54E7823F.8060301@coverity.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:51:43 -0500
From: Tom Honermann <thonermann@coverity.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.35-0.3
References: <announce.20150218105937.GA28211@calimero.vinschen.de> <87d255htw7.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150220095617.GO26084@calimero.vinschen.de> <54E75BB9.90807@coverity.com> <20150220162442.GA26084@calimero.vinschen.de> <54E763CD.9000307@coverity.com> <20150220170354.GE26084@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20150220170354.GE26084@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: coverity.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2015 18:51:47.9180 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB707
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 02/20/2015 12:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Maybe it is actually simpler than that.  Invalidating the cache as a
> whole probably never makes sense.  In fact there are two reasons for
> invalidation:
>
> - The pw_name, pw_shell, pw_home, pw_gecos settings for a user changed.
>
> - The interface to the DC was broken and there are entries of the type
>    Achim mentioned, "DOM+User(RID)".
>
> The first case can only be fixed by invalidating the cache on a regular
> basis.  If we didn't fetch the info for a user for, say, 5 minutes, drop
> the entry from the cache and renew the information by asking the DC
> again.
>
> As for the second case, the DOM+User(RID) entries are undesired and
> wrong anyway.  So maybe the caching code could do what you said in the
> first place.  Invalidate the cache on every network change.  But then,
> only invalidate the entries of the aforementioned type.

That all sounds very reasonable.

> Care to hack a bit?

Oh, if only I could.  If I had more time available, I'd have to go with 
more time to play with my kids (or sleep) :)

Tom.

--
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