ID Numbering in Group and Passwd

[Dave Brown]

Aaaah, now i see what you're getting at :o) You explained it pretty well, I
just didnt cotton on to the fact that you were using 60,000 as an arbitrary
number. I spose we'll have to wait and see how the RFE goes - hopefully
there is some sort of solution implemented whether its the high / low stuff
or the uniqueness or something else Redhat come up with.

On 01/12/05, Robin Laing <Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> Dave Brown wrote:
> > I have had a look at the RFE you filed and to be honest i disagree with
> > the way you have asked for it to be fixed. By selecting the GIDs in
> > decending order from 60,000 down and the uid ascending from 500 there
> > still exists the possibility for these 2 numbers to collide if you have
> > more than 59500 users / groups. Granted this is a large number but for
> > big institutions / companies this isnt unreasonable. I personally have
> > worked with two installations that this numbering scheme would have
> > caused problems.
> >
> > I believe that the underlying code should be changed so that when adding
> > a user the lowest available number which is not currently used by either
> > a group or user should be the one selected. That way you can have as
> > many users as you want (up to 2^32 of course :o) without running into
> > any clashes.
> >
> > I will add a note to your RFE explaining my thoughts and see what RedHat
> > reckon. Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave
> >
> > On 26/11/05, *Robin Laing * <Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca
> > <mailto:Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca>> wrote:
> >
> >     Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> >      > On Thu, 2005-24-11 at 09:31 +0000, Dave Brown wrote:
> >      >
> >      >>Robin / Others - what do you think? Depending on the general
> >     consensus
> >      >>I'll probably submit a feature enhancement request.
> >      >
> >      >
> >      > If you do enter a RFE, can you send a reply to this thread with
> >     bugzilla
> >      > #?  I'd like to watch it since I've recently run into this
> problem -
> >      > it's a major pain in the ass.
> >      >
> >      > Regards,
> >      >
> >      > Ranbir
> >      >
> >
> >     I entered an RFE this afternoon.
> >     Bug 174205
> >
> >     Robin.
> >
> Some times I am not that good at explaining things.
>
> I have added to the RFE taking your comments into account as you will
> see.  I am reposting some of my comments here for the list.
>
> I used 60,00 as an arbitrary number.  If Fedora can work with 2^32
> GID's then change 60,000 to 2^32 and work from there.  It isn't a big
> deal.
>
> The idea is to search from high to low for GID's and low to high for
> UID/GID combos.
>
> This also minimizes any holes in the UID/GID mix unless users are deleted.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20051201/bc569bc8/attachment-0002.html