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: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 = 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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=+bKoGgKzs3moyj5Up8UZ8IMDTD0=; b=eFJqQIkXcmzw/2jhR Foofe7Mf6AA57nvsCIArUpzENYmq/VrfEydMA2muERyMHydTFZo80h8DRPikCQ9W J+loMnKKccR4Cdn+EPNNfdlfnfNLg7tXTWAZ48Vd7AXPQfdv/8RB7AWq4p2imnF+ MRVvWrEW7FijbSJhh79eg32PGg= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Message-ID: <54E7823F.8060301@coverity.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:51:43 -0500 From: Tom Honermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 1.7.35-0.3 References: <87d255htw7 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <20150220095617 DOT GO26084 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <54E75BB9 DOT 90807 AT coverity DOT com> <20150220162442 DOT GA26084 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <54E763CD DOT 9000307 AT coverity DOT com> <20150220170354 DOT GE26084 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20150220170354.GE26084@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: BY2PR05CA053.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.250.43) To BLUPR05MB707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.207.19) Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=thonermann AT coverity DOT com; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB707; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004)(5005003);SRVR:BLUPR05MB707; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0493852DA9 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(6049001)(6009001)(5423002)(479174004)(199003)(51704005)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(450100001)(68736005)(66066001)(46102003)(77156002)(64126003)(62966003)(36756003)(64706001)(2950100001)(65956001)(40100003)(77096005)(47776003)(65806001)(76176999)(122386002)(50466002)(65816999)(106356001)(92566002)(83506001)(59896002)(54356999)(80316001)(110136001)(107886001)(2351001)(93886004)(117156001)(42186005)(105586002)(97736003)(101416001)(50986999)(33656002)(86362001)(87266999)(23676002)(87976001);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:BLUPR05MB707;H:[192.168.1.15];FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: coverity.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB707; X-OriginatorOrg: coverity.com 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