CVS update: samba/source/utils

Gerald (Jerry) Carter jerry at
Mon Dec 31 05:53:02 GMT 2001

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> The only problem I have with this whole change is the loss of the
> pointers.

Hence the use of bit flags.

> My concern is that we will have a user that doesn't have a uid (think
> machine, etc) and we will initilise the struct with ZERO_STRUCT().
> Those uid and gid fields now have a rather dangerous value, and I am
> rather worried that we just might use them.
> In particular, note that the auth subsystem uses a SAM_ACCOUNT to
> describe a user.  That initilisation is not always complete, and I
> really don't want a stuffup like this.  (I'm moving to modify the vuser
> struct to contain the server_info as much of samba needs this
> information later.
> Now while I don't care how it is specified in the SAM_ACCOUNT, the
> lookup/set functions need a way to say 'no value', because of the risks
> involved.

See the init_flag member.

> I also want to be able to do a login without a getpwnam on the name at
> all:  This way we can handle the winbind case with much more grace:
> we take the user and group RID/SID in the info3, ask winbind which
> UID/GID they map to and set them in the SAM_ACCOUNT.  At this point we
> have everything we need to become the user, or to do a getpwuid() -
> which don't involve crazy double lookups with and without the domain
> name...

Sounds reasonable.

chau, jerry
 SAMBA Team                             
 "Sam's Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed.      ISBN 0-672-32269-2
 --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--

More information about the samba-technical mailing list