On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:43:14AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
> can try to prevent them by:
> 1) specifying an extra security bit on the file that indicates that
> share flags are accepted (like we have for mandatory locks no
On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
> diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
This is a bug in clang. There is no null pointer dereference.
Afair gcc tried to pull this trick too but got educated about their error.
Op 04-12-12 17:26, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com schreef:
> Hi,
>
> Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Alsa's native period is ~ 22ms (1024 samples / 44100 or 48000) with dmix
>> despite claiming it to be otherwise..
> What I don't understand is why you talk about ALSA at this level. DSound talks
> to
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-nfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-nfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Shilovsky
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:43 PM
> To: Christoph Hellwig
> Cc: linux-c...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> fsde...@vger.kerne
> The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
> can try to prevent them by:
> 1) specifying an extra security bit on the file that indicates that
> share flags are accepted (like we have for mandatory locks now) and
> setting it for neccessary files only, or
> 2) adding
Christoph Hellwig писал 07.12.2012 20:16:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:26:28PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags -
this change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok
for network filesystems, itsn't not targeted for
> I suspect that WINE would have the same need
Tricky - Wine needs to enforce this behaviour solely between Wine and
the file server, Trying to muck up non emulated local behaviour would be
a bad mistake.
One way perhaps to look at this is you want some tasks to be able to *opt
in* to this behavi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:26:28PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network
> filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problem
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:37:45AM -0500, simo wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 09:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> > > 2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky :
> > > > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags -
> >
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 09:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> > 2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky :
> > > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> > > change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this cha
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:46PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> 2012/12/6 Pavel Shilovsky :
> > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
> > change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for
> > network filesystems, itsn't not targeted for lo
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Steve French wrote:
> although I could not find the same level of detail that MS-FSA
> provides (e.g. see section 2.14.10 for the detailed
Typo It is section 2.1.4.10
--
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:49:49PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400
>> Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
>>
>> > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this
>> > change can benefit cifs and nfs
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23310
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23306
Your paranoid android
On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 21:59 +, Andrew Talbot wrote:
> diff --git a/dlls/msi/action.c b/dlls/msi/action.c
> index 076d1b3..677a43f 100644
> --- a/dlls/msi/action.c
> +++ b/dlls/msi/action.c
> @@ -6763,7 +6763,7 @@ static UINT ACTION_RemoveODBC( MSIPACKAGE *package )
> #define ENV_MOD_PREFIX
16 matches
Mail list logo
