similar to: [PATCH] hivex: Make empty strings in REG_MULTI_SZ values available.

It was brought to my attention that dumping a registry hive causes a lot of time spent in disk I/O activity because iconv_open() and iconv_close() are called for every key. Every iconv_open() call causes /usr/lib/.../gconv/$ENCODING.so to be opened and mapped. The iconv_t handles are now cached in the hive_h struct; they are opened on-demand and re-used. On my ~10 year old Lenovo T60, I have

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:52:52AM +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > It was brought to my attention that dumping a registry hive causes a > lot of time spent in disk I/O activity because iconv_open() and > iconv_close() are called for every key. Every iconv_open() call causes > /usr/lib/.../gconv/$ENCODING.so to be opened and mapped. > > The iconv_t handles are now cached in the

It was brought to my attention that dumping a registry hive causes a lot of time spent in disk I/O activity because iconv_open() and iconv_close() are called for every key. Every iconv_open() call causes /usr/lib/.../gconv/$ENCODING.so to be opened and mapped. The iconv_t handles are now cached in the hive_h struct; they are opened on-demand and re-used. On my ~10 year old Lenovo T60, I have

Some of the data in names and string values were being unsafely printed, causing some types of XML processors to fail (e.g. Python's Expat). This patch checks for printability of each character and outputs base64 with an encoding attribute for unsafe data. --- xml/hivexml.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- lib/value.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/value.c b/lib/value.c index c4e21ec..f222b41 100644 --- a/lib/value.c +++ b/lib/value.c @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ hivex_value_value (hive_h *h, hive_value_h value, /* Arbitrarily limit the length that we will read. */ if (len > HIVEX_MAX_VALUE_LEN) { SET_ERRNO (ERANGE, "data length >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Ligges [SMTP:ligges@statistik.uni-dortmund.de] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:38 PM > To: Walke, Rainer > Cc: R-devel > Subject: Re: [Rd] (PR#7163) Install packages does not work on Win2003 > server > > Walke, Rainer wrote: > > > >a) It works for me. > > >b) If it works for you on some Windows

This is, hopefully, a full fix for handling of li-records. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717583 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987463 Rich.

Hi, assume I have an existing file 'pathname' and I want to rename it to 'pathnameN' (which does not exist). I use: res <- file.rename(pathname, pathnameN); Is it guaranteed that: (1) if res == TRUE, the file now have name 'pathnameN' and there is no file with name 'pathname'? (2) if res == FALSE, nothing has changed? or could it theoretically also be the

Hello, I am sending the following proposal to discuss issues and solutions regarding data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes. This caught my attention when we encountered a race condition in ThinLTO with caching. While looking into how ThinLTO deals with the problem of cache files reads/writes/deletes I spotted a lot of problems: some of them are related to data races, others - to

Le jeu. 22 mars 2018 à 16:46, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com> a écrit : > Hi Katya > > Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > > On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > > Hello, > > I am sending the following proposal to discuss issues and solutions > regarding data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes. >

Hi Katya Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > > Hello, > > I am sending the following proposal to discuss issues and solutions regarding data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes. > > This caught my attention when we encountered a race condition in ThinLTO with caching. >

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 22 mars 2018 à 16:46, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>> a écrit : > Hi Katya > > Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com

From: stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:58 PM To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Cc: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>; Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>; Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>; Reid

Hi Steven, Look at my replies inline (below your comments). Katya. From: stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>; Peter Collingbourne

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:03 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > > Katya. > > > > *From:* stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification ☺. I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be (very roughly, in LOC)? Do you anticipate that a lot of existing legacy C LTO infrastructure will have to be rewritten? Could this also

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:03 PM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > Hi Steven, > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > Katya. > > From: stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com> <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:34 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thank you for the clarification J. > > > > I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will > take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way > it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be >

Hello, all: Last week I purchased a new computer that had significantly more RAM than the 3GB my last system had, and as such I moved from the i386 version of Aptosid to the AMD64 version. My new system also has a dedicated video card instead of the integrated graphics my last one had, so I was anxious to get myself set up with Portal and Portal 2. Upon installing debs for 1.3.25, I found that

Hi Steven and Peter, I think we resolved all the misunderstanding/concerns that we had with the proposal and decided that we don’t have to implement heavy-weight synchronization solutions (such as read-write locks, etc). Lightweight solution is expected to work on MacOS and Windows (however, there might be issues with Windows supporting non-NTFS file systems). There are two options for the