View Single Post
Old 07-09-2007, 04:31 PM  
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 703

Originally Posted by Yil
Zero: The private dir permissions utilize the same routine as all of the .ini file options and thus are just strings that use names instead of id's. I suppose that format could be extended to support id's for users/groups and when valid users/groups are specified they could be resolved and stored that way. I think it's probably far far easier to just use a user flag though. That's especially true since if you add a new user you would be forced to update all the permissions if you specified them individually and that's probably more likely than the user rename issue.

Yea, I append the extra data to executables so tuff's script works That's cool, and mentioning that means I probably should provide a TCL version as well for future use.

VFS: it sounds like you're doing nothing fancy at all. That means the problem won't be found easily as it's more likely memory corruption based rather than a simple programming error in the new code I wrote.
Of course using flags is very handy for certain types of private dirs that more than one user has access to. But for scenarios like when you have one private dir (as a subdir) for each user and set the permissions accordingly, just to be extra sure that noone could gain access to something they're not supposed to, making that resolve thing to uid work would greatly improve the flexibility. Just a thought...

Any ideas on how that supposed memory corruption could be tracked down? Maybe a debug version?

Zer0Racer is offline