Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "wellnhofer".
2003 Sep 28
1
Problem with roaming profiles and Samba 3.0
...rt.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q327462) Windows
checks the owner of a roaming profile folder when logging in.
For some reason this check fails with Samba 3.0 (at least with our
setup). It works with Samba 2.2.
Any suggestions?
Please CC me. I'm not on the list.
Thanks,
Nick Wellnhofer
--
aevum gmbh
leopoldstr. 87
80802 m?nchen
germany
fon: +4989 38380653
fax: +4989 38799384
wellnhofer@aevum.de
http://aevum.de/
2020 Oct 17
1
Re: [xml] Why does libxml2 limit port numbers to 999, 999, 999?
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 06:32:18PM +0200, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml <xml@gnome.org> wrote:
> > It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than
> > correctness.
>
> Yes, this is an arbitrary limit introduced to avoid integer overflow.
>
> > I thi...
2020 Oct 17
3
Why does libxml2 limit port numbers to 999,999,999?
The AF_VSOCK protocol added in Linux 5.6 uses a 32 bit port number.
For NBD we map this to simple URIs[1] like nbd+vsock://CID:PORT (where
CID is a number that acts a bit like a hostname and PORT is a 32 bit
port number). eg: nbd+vsock://1:1000000000/ would be port 10^9 on the
loopback address VMADDR_CID_LOCAL (== 1).
The problem is that libxml2 arbitrarily limits port numbers to
999,999,999.
2020 Oct 17
0
Re: [xml] Why does libxml2 limit port numbers to 999, 999, 999?
On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml <xml@gnome.org> wrote:
> It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than
> correctness.
Yes, this is an arbitrary limit introduced to avoid integer overflow.
> I think it should accept port numbers at least up to
> signed int (the type used to store port numbers), and give an error if
> the port