timeout in LDAP access

Denis Excoffier cygwin@Denis-Excoffier.org
Mon Jul 28 18:51:00 GMT 2014

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.


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

More information about the Cygwin mailing list