From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 25 19:05:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072561065697 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:05:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A6F8FC1A for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:05:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from [128.205.32.76] (bauer.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.76]) (authenticated bits=0) by phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (8.14.1/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n5PIjCIQ024467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:45:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu) From: Ken Smith To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-X21KY1w0czHTT/BbE3za" Organization: U. Buffalo CSE Department Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:45:12 -0400 Message-Id: <1245955512.20785.14.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Subject: Time to drop the warning for uid's bigger than USHRT_MAX? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:05:06 -0000 --=-X21KY1w0czHTT/BbE3za Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John's work on the SYSV IPC stuff removes the last place I'm aware of that had an issue with uid's bigger than what will fit inside an unsigned short. So, a couple questions: 1) Does anyone know of any remaining places I'm not aware of? And, if the answer to that winds up being no... 2) lib/libc/gen/pw_scan.c has some support for providing warnings about there potentially being issues with using uid's larger than a certain value. Should the code for that remain in place "for the next time we have this issue" despite it not really being needed now or should it all just get ripped out? Given John's work just arrived and it was a pre-requisite to doing anything about this RE would probably allow for any changes related to this happening after code freeze starts but it should happen soon if it's going to happen at all. ;-) Personally I'm leaning towards adjusting things so the warnings get triggered at UID_MAX for now and providing a few comments that say "We know this looks unnecessary right now but there was a time when ...". Thanks... --=20 Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel | --=-X21KY1w0czHTT/BbE3za Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkpDxa4ACgkQ/G14VSmup/a9UACfYmFWIs1PzVgZw4XMZLzO0SPj /BMAoJV9mVyVnUfQ/LCbyt8FVDsnuad8 =BFVt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-X21KY1w0czHTT/BbE3za--