similar to: Dsync error when working dir o-rwx

Hi, An assertion that I haven't seen before: Apr 20 11:15:32 emerald dovecot: [ID 107833 mail.error] IMAP(user): file mbox-sync-rewrite.c: line 106 (mbox_sync_headers_add_space): assertion failed: (start_pos < data_size) gdb output from the core file of imap is attached. My setup: Solaris 9, mbox format, INBOX is NFS mounted from a Solaris 10 system, imap and imaps only. Jeff Earickson

Hi, Dovecot 1.0 beta7 is dying on me. My logfile shows: May 10 15:54:28 hermes dovecot: IMAP(alden): UIDs broken with partial sync in mbox file /var/mail/alden May 10 15:54:28 hermes dovecot: IMAP(alden): file mbox-sync-rewrite.c: line 106 (mbox_sync_headers_add_space): assertion failed: (start_pos < data_size) May 10 15:54:28 hermes dovecot: child 14185 (imap) killed with signal 6 I'm

I have read through that and that's where I'm at now. I cannot understand why I have permissions fighting and the group permissions are being trumped by the owner. Regards Karl -----Original Message----- From: Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> Reply-To: Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> To: samba at lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] Group with RWX acl

Thank you for any help with this: Using xattr so that I can manage a domain joined Samba server share with AD permissions. The underlying OS file perms are 777 and I have set the share with -R a+w to make sure that permissions for owner and group are the same. Getfacl returns: # file: deleteme.txt # owner: root # group: group_access user::rwx group::rwx group:group_access:rwx mask::rwx

On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Josh Haberman wrote: > I noticed that JITMemoryManager allocates its slabs as rwx. Isn't it a security problem to have memory mapped as both writable and executable? I think JITs often avoid this by mapping their memory as rw, then switching it to rx once the data has been written. I was facing a similar problem in a JIT of my own and was curious to see how

dear everybody samba is 3.5.11-79.fc14 is this weird or my logic fails, I was hoping that if a file has unix 770 then Win clients should be able to write to it even if parent folder is 750 also if a folder is 770 and a Win client creates a new folder in it, its unix permissions get set to 755, and yet! another(different) Win user can just delete this newly created folder. with what

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:03:08 +0100 "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm searching the web for a while but cannot find an answer to this, > even on Samba wiki, so please, does somebody have a clue, how to > enable MODIFY access permission for a file that is located on Samba > share? > > The fileserver is

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:16:15 +0100 "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Thank You, Rowland. > > I have already read that. According to chapter File System Support, > does that imply, that Samba could also well never grant Modify > permission for linux ACLs? Do I need extended ACLs on filesystem in > order to do that? I thought,

Hi, I'm searching the web for a while but cannot find an answer to this, even on Samba wiki, so please, does somebody have a clue, how to enable MODIFY access permission for a file that is located on Samba share? The fileserver is Samba, member of AD domain, local filesystem ext4, basic ACLs. The file has properly set rwx for users and groups needed, both for a file and for parent directory.

I noticed that JITMemoryManager allocates its slabs as rwx. Isn't it a security problem to have memory mapped as both writable and executable? I think JITs often avoid this by mapping their memory as rw, then switching it to rx once the data has been written. I was facing a similar problem in a JIT of my own and was curious to see how LLVM addresses this issue. Thanks, Josh --------------

Thank You, Rowland. I have already read that. According to chapter File System Support, does that imply, that Samba could also well never grant Modify permission for linux ACLs? Do I need extended ACLs on filesystem in order to do that? I thought, that write permission on filesystem should be sufficient for Samba to grant Modify for Windows... As of smb.conf, here is snippet [pripomienkovanie]

Hello, I am having problem setting permission on shared folder: the folder is?datasamba/common and after I set full permission for a user itester (3000017) and also?tester (3000018), I could see that it is only granting r-x to those users. but I could see from the default permissions that they have rwx. getfacl /datasamba/common # file: datasamba/common # owner: root # group: users #

In the world of the MCJIT, memory allocation, including permissioning, is the responsibility of the client application. The MCJIT only directly touches memory in the address space of the host. Once the old JIT is removed, all of the allocations done by the included memory manager can become RW. lli's trivial memory manager will then have the RW->X transition for code sections. All of the

I'm not sure about the legacy JIT interface, but I don't think this can be done cleanly with the current MCJIT interface. I mentioned a while ago that this is one of the improvements we'd like to make to MCJIT. I can definitely see Josh's point about performance, and so we won't want permissions to always be set, but I do think it's worth revising the interface between

Somewhat, yes. The MCJIT currently doesn't support lazy compilation in general, and things like notifications back (via the memory manager) when new sections have been produced and such needs to be part of that. Your'e right that, for now, the underlying assumption is that everything gets built up at once. The following is mostly stuff we've talked about before, but just to make sure

When you talk about lazy compilation, it isn't clear to me if you mean the single compilation step that produces a loadable module being delayed until a function is requested or the full-blown, legacy-JIT style lazy compilation of individual functions within a module being JITed only when needed. If the latter, it isn't clear to me how that would be done within the MC model. That's a

The main problem, as I see it, is that there's no way for the memory manager to know when it can safely change the protection state of sections apart from making assumptions about the implementation of MCJIT (namely that it will generate code on construction) and receiving some sort of notification outside the standard interface. I believe there's also no provision for handling read-only