[PATCH] fshelp_iscontroller root uid bug

2008-06-27 Thread Flávio Cruz
Hi folks, I've been reading the libfshelp library and it appears that I've found a little bug on it. In the function fshelp_iscontroller, which checks if an user controls the filesystem based on the stat struct, it checks the presence of std_uid in the uid's vector two times and it doesn't for the

Re: [PATCH] fshelp_iscontroller root uid bug

2008-06-27 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Flávio Cruz, le Fri 27 Jun 2008 22:12:09 +, a écrit : > In the function fshelp_iscontroller, which checks if an user controls > the filesystem based on the stat struct, it checks the presence of > std_uid in the uid's vector two times and it doesn't for the root uid. > The attached file

Re: Revision control

2008-06-27 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:09PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Donnerstag 26 Juni 2008 00:25:28 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Mercurial's interface *might* be more intuitive than Git for CVS > > users (I can't tell); but that doesn't necessarily mean that overall > > usability i

Re: A proxy of the proc server for translators

2008-06-27 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:46:55PM +0200, zhengda wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> These should be fixable by reversing the command I think: >> >> settrans -afgpc /root/socket2/2 proc_proxy /root/hurd/pfinet/pfinet >> -i eth0 -a 192.168.2.11 -g 192.168.2.1 -m 255.255.255.0 >> > In this

Re: The patch of glibc which allows the user to override the pfinet server

2008-06-27 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:31:12PM +0200, zhengda wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If we want to override the TCP/IP stack, that doesn't mean we want to >> override the pipe server as well, or the other way round... >> > I think using the symbolic link to the default server is another

Re: GSoC: the plan for the project network virtualization

2008-06-27 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:11:12PM +0200, zhengda wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If that is the case, we would again need a proxy for the master >> device port, which would forward open() on the network device, but >> block all others. >> > Do you mean something like a translator who