hyc@symas.com wrote:

ondra@mistotebe.net wrote:

...

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:33:32PM +0000, hyc@symas.com wrote:

...

Hello Ondrej, I tried your patch but it breaks test064-constraint.

Hi Howard, there is useless code that caused it to read an unitialized variable. A fix removing that code is at ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/Ondrej-Kuznik-20141218-ITS-7781.patch

Thanks for identifying and fixing the problem in the meantime.

Ok. But looking at this patch, the lines in question actually are needed, since they take care of errors in the cases for CONSTRAINT_COUNT and CONSTRAINT_SET.

Just because I'm curious:

What's the use-case for setting size and count to zero?

If one wants to forbid an attribute completely one should probably use NOT in a DIT content rule for the STRUCTURAL object class. (This does not mean that this shouldn't be fixed though.)

Just my 2 cents.

Ciao, Michael.