henrik.bohnenkamp@ionos.com wrote:

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:31:41AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:

...

--On Friday, January 25, 2019 1:51 PM +0000 hbohnenkamp@united-internet.de wrote:

Hi, thanks for the report and investigation. I've briefly reviewed your patches. Please squash your #3 into #2, there's no reason to preserve that.

We don't use "inline" in this code. If the compiler is smart enough it will inline automatically anyway. Please drop that from your patch.

No need to keep the old mdb_idscope invocation commented out in patch #2. Just delete it, we have the git history.

In patch #1 delete.c your patch line #145 is incorrect. You should be using is_entry_alias(e) instead of (op->ora_e.) The entry in question is not part of the op request, only its DN is in the Delete request.

Not sure why you dropped nsubs from the diskNode definition. Are you sure you haven't broken the nsubs processing in this patch?

Hi,

I have now done quite a lot of testing in the way described in my email from January (Followup 3). I used version 2.4.47, not the HEAD of the openldap git master branch.

I have found one bug, the one mentioned already in the same email. I have added a fix for that bug to the patch directory in https://github.com/hbo/openldap-mdb-deref-problem

I have come across the regression with the back-hdb backend again, which I also described in my previous email already. I am now convinced that this regression is really a problem with the back-hdb implementation, and I can show it without using my patched implementation of back-mdb. The demonstration requires a bit more work to be really presentable and should in any case go into a different bug report.

Apart from these two issues I have not seen any regressions, and I am now quite confident that my patch would work reliable in the environment of my company... no guarantees for anything else :-)

I have seen that Quanah has suggested to look at ITS#8875 for the 2.4.48 release. Whether there will be a fix in 2.4.48 and whether it will be based on my patch is of course up to the lead developers (the change in the DB schema is certainly a strong point against), but this patch can perhaps serve as something to test the actual fix against.

Best regards Henrik

-- Henrik Bohnenkamp