WHY? #define MAX_SAM_ENTRIES 250

[Andrew Bartlett]

Tim Potter wrote:
> 
> Andrew Bartlett writes:
> 
> > I was attempting to figure out some of the problems surrounding Win9X
> > user lists, and came across this interesing define:
> >
> > include/rpc_samr.h:569:#define MAX_SAM_ENTRIES 250
> >
> > Why is it so low?  Other comments in the code indicate it was 600 at
> > some stage, but 250 is WAY to low, IMHO.
> 
> Well the RPC code used to have a whole bunch of static buffers in
> them.  Now talloc() is mostly used to allocate variable length
> buffers for returning RPC data.
> 
> Try this:
> 
> int main()
> {
> #ifdef MAX_SAM_ENTRIES
>        abort();
> #endif
> }
> 
> Tim.

There are still a pile of uses of MAX_SAM_ENTRIES, including fixed size
arrays.    What would happen if I changed it to 2500?  

In any case, I think my problem (Win9X user-level security lists
failing) if occuring much earlier (Ie for well less than 250 users), but
I thought I might ask.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
abartlet at pcug.org.au
abartlet at samba.org