mimir at diament.ists.pwr.wroc.pl
Sun Apr 14 06:15:03 GMT 2002
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the patch that adds server side of lsa_enum_trust_dom call to
> > > > samba. Memory leak causing segfault to smbd in some cases is already
> > > > fixed. Major changes include:
> > >
> > > That code (with some major changes)
> > Yes, I've noticed. You put comments I was just going to put (though I have
> > a bit more of them in my sources). What surprised me a little is the fact
> > that you gave up the list of TRUSTDOM in favour of simple array. I know,
> > the number of returned domain entries will be mostly "reasonable", but I
> > see nothing wrong in using list, actually. secrets_get_trusted_domains is
> > also a bit modified in its construction, but there's no fundamental
> > change.
> I used an array becouse thats the convention that all other RPC
> functions use.
Oh, I should have noticed that. Right.
> > > is now in the tree. In particular
> > > this version works with NT4.
> > That one I sent did not ? I've tried it and it was fine.
> It had my NT4 box in a spin as it was always getting NT_STATUS_OK, which
> caused it to want yet more entires until it got
Heh, that's the code I'm writing now. The thing is, that smbd must be
able to return many entries in more than one response. That's were
NT_STATUS_NO_MORE_ENTRIES is especially needed. To easily test it, I've
modified rpcclient code so that the request may be parametrised with
enumeration context and preferred max length of response as well. Stay
tuned, I'll send it soon.
|Rafal 'Mimir' Szczesniak <mimir at diament.ists.pwr.wroc.pl> |
|*BSD, GNU/Linux and Samba /
More information about the samba-technical