Re: (ITS#5786) too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
by hyc＠symas.com
michael(a)stroeder.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Michael Ströder
> Version: HEAD
> OS: openSUSE Linux 11.0
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.100.88)
>
>
> HEAD synced, invoked configure after make distclean
>
> cd overlays; make -w static
> make[3]: Entering directory
> `/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd/overlays'
> gcc -g -O4 -I../../../include -I../../../include -I.. -I./..
> -I/usr/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include -DDEVEL -c -o
> syncprov.o syncprov.c
> syncprov.c: In function syncprov_op_response:
> syncprov.c:1612: error: too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
> syncprov.c:1621: error: too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
> make[3]: *** [syncprov.o] Error 1
> make[3]: Leaving directory
> `/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd/overlays'
> make[2]: *** [liboverlays.a] Error 2
> make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd'
> make[1]: *** [all-common] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers'
> make: *** [all-common] Error 1
Incomplete commit. Fixed now.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
14 years, 7 months
(ITS#5787) Implement support for "Codice Fiscale" syntax
by ando＠sys-net.it
Full_Name: Pierangelo Masarati
Version: HEAD
OS: irrelevant
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/cf.tar.gz
Submission from: (NULL) (81.72.89.40)
Submitted by: ando
This module registers the "Codice Fiscale" syntax, derived from directoryString,
and makes it compatible with the caseExactMatch matchingRule. It also defines a
"codiceFiscale" attribute and the "codiceFiscaleBase" and "codiceFiscaleObject"
objectClasses.
I believe this software and these schema items will probably be mainly useful to
Italian users and developers of OpenLDAP software.
This software has been developed by myself, based on publicly available
information. It is released under the OpenLDAP license for use with OpenLDAP
software.
p.
14 years, 7 months
(ITS#5786) too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
by michael＠stroeder.com
Full_Name: Michael Ströder
Version: HEAD
OS: openSUSE Linux 11.0
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.100.88)
HEAD synced, invoked configure after make distclean
cd overlays; make -w static
make[3]: Entering directory
`/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd/overlays'
gcc -g -O4 -I../../../include -I../../../include -I.. -I./..
-I/usr/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include -DDEVEL -c -o
syncprov.o syncprov.c
syncprov.c: In function syncprov_op_response:
syncprov.c:1612: error: too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
syncprov.c:1621: error: too many arguments to function slap_get_commit_csn
make[3]: *** [syncprov.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd/overlays'
make[2]: *** [liboverlays.a] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers/slapd'
make[1]: *** [all-common] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/michael/openldap/HEAD/openldap/servers'
make: *** [all-common] Error 1
14 years, 7 months
Re: (ITS#5785) dontUseCopy in slapd requires criticality to be TRUE
by ando＠sys-net.it
michael(a)stroeder.com wrote:
> ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
>> The "dontUseCopy" control requires criticality to be TRUE. While this is the
>> desirable value,
>
> Why is this a desirable value? The answer Kurt gave on ldap-ext mailing
> list just mentioned direct mapping to X.511 dontUseCopy option.
Because. If you need to avoid using copy, then you strongly need it.
If it's just a wish, then don't use it, assuming the DSA you contact
will do no more than what it can to provide you valid data. You would
otherwise be misuing the control.
>> a DUA could use the control with the criticality set to FALSE.
Yes, perfectly legitimate (from a DSA's point of view, as per RFC4511)
but contrary to the control's specification (and, IMHO, to common sense).
> As I stated on ldap-ext mailing list in this case I'd simply accept a
> best effort on the DSA side.
IMHO you already get the best effort by not using the control.
> So sending "dontUseCopy" control with
> criticality FALSE would mean: If the DSA supports this control it should
> *process* it according to what's specified in
> draft-zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy. Otherwise ignore it.
No. The spec looks broken to me, because it contradicts RFC4511 (from
the DSA's point of view). The DUA must use TRUE to comply with
dontUseCopy. If it doesn't, then the DSA can do its best to honor it,
but nothing more. If the DSA finds out it can chain a request, but this
would cost resources, it could return a referral, or simply ignore the
control. All of these behaviors would comply with criticality to FALSE.
> The main problem is that a DUA cannot determine in advance whether a DSA
> supports a certain control for a certain backend. It turned out in
> practice that looking a supportedControl in rootDSE does not have any
> meaning at all.
You got a clear answer: the only ultimate way to know is to try. If you
use FALSE, you'll never know.
> IMO yet another control does not solve this.
It does: you add dontUseCopy with criticality set to TRUE; you add the
whatFailed control; if dontUseCopy fails, you'd know for sure. Then you
don't need to use it any more, as using it with FALSE would make no sense.
>> For full conformance with RFC4511, if the control is syntactically well-formed
>> and criticality is set to FALSE, slapd MUST accept it if recognized, or MUST
>> ignore it if not recognized, but CANNOT question the fact that the value of
>> criticality is violating the control's specification.
>
> I'm not sure whether this statement can be made generally. I'd wish so
> and I'd rephrase "accept it" to "process it".
With "accept" I mean: "recognize it"; with "process" I'd mean "apply it
to the operation". If you set criticality to FALSE and the DSA does not
recognize it, the DSA will just ignore it. If the DSA recognizes it, it
is at the DSA's discretion to either apply it or not, based on what the
DSA considers best (including interoperability with the specific
operation, with other extensions, with resource consumption and any
other consideration about the opportunity to process it). I'm pretty
sure you agree that elaving so much discretion to the DSA about
something related to data integrity does not differ too much from not
using the control at all.
p.
14 years, 7 months
Re: (ITS#5640) slapd scans too many objects at startup
by ali.pouya＠free.fr
Howard Chu a écrit :
>
> The startup scan is only performed inside the syncprov overlay. If
> server C is only a consumer, then it does not need the syncprov overlay.
>
Yes, you are right for the point 1). Thank you.
But I'm also bothered with the point 2) reproduced below :
....
2) If I do only one write operation on B, then I get two contextCSN values,
which is normal.
But il this case slapd on B scans, at each startup, all objecs written on A
after the write operation on B.
The log and the effect are similar to those explained above.
Best Regards
Ali
14 years, 7 months
Re: (ITS#5640) slapd scans too many objects at startup
by hyc＠symas.com
ali.pouya(a)free.fr wrote:
> Full_Name: Ali Pouya
> Version: 2.4.11
> OS: Linux 2.6
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (145.242.11.4)
>
>
> I have a test directory with two mirrors A and B and a replica C connected to
> A.
> I usaually use server A for write operations.
>
> I encounter the following problems :
>
>
> 1) If the data base is initiated in stand alone (so serverID defaults to zero)
> and then I set serverIDs 1 and 2 for A and B then each time I start up slapd on
> C it scans all of the objects writtent on A afterwards, producing the followin
> log for each object :
The startup scan is only performed inside the syncprov overlay. If server C is
only a consumer, then it does not need the syncprov overlay.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
14 years, 7 months
Re: (ITS#5709) slapd sync provider skips some objects
by hyc＠symas.com
hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
> sylvain.thomas(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> On 10/30/08, Gavin Henry<ghenry(a)openldap.org> wrote:
>>> Can you upload these zip attachments to our ftp server or somewhere else
>>> with online
>>> access please. Then we can test.
>>>
>> I have uploaded the two files to your ftp server (incoming folder).
>
> I can confirm that the problem is easily reproducable.
Fixed now in HEAD. A couple of bad assumptions from 1.234-1.236...
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
14 years, 7 months
Re: (ITS#5785) dontUseCopy in slapd requires criticality to be TRUE
by michael＠stroeder.com
ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
>
> The "dontUseCopy" control requires criticality to be TRUE. While this is the
> desirable value,
Why is this a desirable value? The answer Kurt gave on ldap-ext mailing
list just mentioned direct mapping to X.511 dontUseCopy option.
> a DUA could use the control with the criticality set to FALSE.
As I stated on ldap-ext mailing list in this case I'd simply accept a
best effort on the DSA side. So sending "dontUseCopy" control with
criticality FALSE would mean: If the DSA supports this control it should
*process* it according to what's specified in
draft-zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy. Otherwise ignore it.
The main problem is that a DUA cannot determine in advance whether a DSA
supports a certain control for a certain backend. It turned out in
practice that looking a supportedControl in rootDSE does not have any
meaning at all.
IMO yet another control does not solve this.
> For full conformance with RFC4511, if the control is syntactically well-formed
> and criticality is set to FALSE, slapd MUST accept it if recognized, or MUST
> ignore it if not recognized, but CANNOT question the fact that the value of
> criticality is violating the control's specification.
I'm not sure whether this statement can be made generally. I'd wish so
and I'd rephrase "accept it" to "process it".
Ciao, Michael.
14 years, 7 months
