On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 03:35 -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
Howard Chu wrote:
Currently OpenLDAP uses the refint and memberOf modules, knowing that this attribute is simply a DN, nothing more. These modules (and probably the input validation) will no doubt be unable to cope with the 'extended' DN form.
Is it reasonable to ask that OpenLDAP carry a module so Samba-specific in it's application (reading the objectSid and entryUUID and formatting the link that way)? Should we try to just fill this in with another search as part of the search entry callback? (at great performance cost).
Any thoughts?
We already carry a bunch of Samba-related modules in our contrib branch. I don't see any problem with adding this one. In this case all you need is a module to implement parsing and processing of your magic Extended DN control.
Frankly, I can see this being generally useful, if you define the semantics broadly enough. For example, the request control could take a data argument providing: MagicData ::= SEQUENCE of DerefSpec
DerefSpec ::= SEQUENCE { DerefAttr attributedescription, attributes attrlist } attrlist ::= SEQUENCE of attr attributedescriptionSo for each DerefAttr, dereference the name and extract the attributes from the target entry, and return them all in the response control.
I see a few issues:
- the resulting values do not conform to RFC4514; this could create
interoperability issues with other modules plugged in that receive mucked DN-valued attrs, including the entry's name itself
I think you misunderstood my proposal. I'm not suggesting we muck with the returned DNs at all; the extra information will only appear in the response control.
So the response control would contain lists of attribute/value pairs along with their associated data? (So I can then fit them back into the right place for the AD reply)
- according to the definition of 1.2.840.113556.1.4.529, the GUID and
the DN parts must always be present; we do not have any GUID (unless we think of casting entryUUID to GUID or something the like)
entryUUID == GUID.
In any case, the module would need to perform a subsearch anyway for each DN-valued attr that is being returned, in order to gather the required information, possibly with the exception of the entry's DN (in this case, it would suffice to add the attributes needed by the extended DN to the requested attrs).
Right. But perhaps we should stop referring to it as an "extended DN," since we're not altering the DN at all. Call it something like Subsearch or Dereference control (or something...). We just need to provide ldap_create_subsearch_control() and ldap_parse_subsearchresponse_control().
Well, that's just the Microsoft name for it, that's all.
Andrew Bartlett