From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 27 00:52:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id AAA10850 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:52:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id AAA10840 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id JAA29456 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:52:48 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id JAA28483 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:52:46 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.4/8.6.9) id JAA03329 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:48:35 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199612270848.JAA03329@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: multi-group file access techniques / directory hardlinks To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:48:34 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: from David Nugent at "Dec 27, 96 02:00:01 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As David Nugent wrote: > So far, the 16 groups per user is enforced by initgroups() et > al remains, but I think it a candidate for being looked at as > well. It seems that this is mostly driven by the NGROUPS > #define in sys/param.h NGROUPS_MAX and KERN_NGROUPS (which is > 18, not 16, for some reason which I haven't looked into). > > Unlike the 200 limit, though, a change here will affects the > kernel, not just userland code. If they are done correctly, this shouldn't be the problem. We allow for as much as you want IP alias addresses, so why not allowing for as much as you want secondary groups? Of course, you gotta be careful with obsolete or braindead protocols that hard-code some maximum. NIS and NFS seem to fit into this category... Still no justification to also limit the !NIS && !NFS users. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)