From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 29 12:14:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB8C37B401; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D4543F3F; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0394.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.139] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19AaYl-0002za-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:14:36 -0700 Message-ID: <3EAECECB.ECB37B03@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:13:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a49018b604d12a3f3d21391a90dadec1b4666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Vallo Kallaste cc: Tim Robbins Subject: Re: Somethings still up with new NSS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:14:42 -0000 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > "Jacques A. Vidrine" 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