h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD OS: Linux URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard

If objectclass B is a subclass of A, and an entry contains objectclass B but not A, slapd returns attributeOrValueExists to a request to add A. OTOH it allows replace(objectClass: <A, B>), and after that it allows delete(objectClass: A). This is inconsistent.

If the objectClass attribute contains B, does it "really" contain A as well? I couldn't find such a statement in the RFCs, so my guess is that add(objectClass: A) should be allowed. Though I haven't looked all that hard.

I believe the actual implementation should be... implementation dependent :), provided it is consistent. Right now, the issue you noticed is caused by the fact that the presence of the value being added is checked by using the objectClass attribute equality rule implemented in objectSubClassMatch(), which (correctly) returns a match both for exact and inherited match. However, this does not allow to discriminate the actual presence of an objectClass from its inherited presence. We should either:

a) use a separate matching rule when checking for value presence, or

b) always remove superior objectClasses, and transparently ignore any attempt to add them to an entry (the operation succeeds, but nothing is actually written).

In any case, the code as is now seems to be inconsistent, as it does not allow a modification that should be perfectly legitimate, regardless of how it is actually dealt with by the implementation.

I vote in favor of option (b).

p.

Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it ---------------------------------------