Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:13:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Somethings still up with new NSS? Message-ID: <3EAECECB.ECB37B03@mindspring.com> References: <20030428075916.GA53857@myhakas.internal> <20030428190209.A21656@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20030428075916.GA53857@myhakas.internal> <20030428080505.GA1474@chihiro.leafy.idv.tw> <20030428075916.GA53857@myhakas.internal> <20030428105521.GB2676@madman.celabo.org> <xzp8ytts461.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > But, if you run `pwd_mkdb -u' BEFORE you rebuild the entire database > > with plain `pwd_mkdb', the database will have version 3 entries for > > all of your users, but only a version 4 entry for the single target > > user. Old binaries still function fine, but new binaries now `see' > > that the database supports the new version 4 entries. So, only the > > single user that was updated is recognized. > > Why do new binaries ignore the older version 3 entries? Because the file might have been transferred from another machine, and have the wrong byte-order for the current machine in the version 3 entries. The version 4 entries are portable, so they don't have this problem. It probably would have been better to just put a per record byte order maker in there, instead of using a version number, but you would still have the same problem for the records without the marker, so you'd have to ignore them as "suspect". -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EAECECB.ECB37B03>