IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
dsdb_schema_pfm_attid_from_oid() instead of
dsdb_schema_pfm_make_attid() as those functions are
supposed to return ATTIDs only for OIDs we already know about
(i.e. are in prefixMap)
Autobuild-User: Kamen Mazdrashki <kamenim@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Tue Oct 26 22:44:36 UTC 2010 on sn-devel-104
read-write functions.
dsdb_schema_make_attid() may change prefixMap implicitly
and this is not always desired behavior.
The problem was that
(1) callers had no control on this behavior
(2) callers had no way to know wheter prefixMap has been
changed which can lead to hard to find bugs like
prefixMap is changed in read operation
Currently it is mapped to Octet String LDAP syntax
for comparison purposes.
According to LDAP rfc we should be using same comparison
as Directory String (LDB_SYNTAX_DIRECTORY_STRING), but case sensitive.
But according to ms docs binary compare should do the job:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223200(v=PROT.10).aspx
Autobuild-User: Kamen Mazdrashki <kamenim@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Fri Oct 22 22:19:50 UTC 2010 on sn-devel-104
This implementation doesn't use prefixMap/Schema to validate
numericoid OIDs. We may not have this OID yet, so I see no point
checking schema for if we have it.
Side effect of using prefixMap/Schema for validating numericoids
is that we mistakenly add the OID to the prefixMap.
This led to a corrupted prefixMap in LDB.
Autobuild-User: Kamen Mazdrashki <kamenim@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Thu Oct 21 23:32:26 UTC 2010 on sn-devel-104
these functions operate on ldb_modules, so they should be in the
ldb_modules directory. They also should return ldb errors codes, not
WERROR codes, as otherwise the error can be hidden from the ldap
caller
This re-arrangement fixes a dependency loop in the schema/samdb code.
Pair-Programmed-With: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Pair-Programmed-With: Kamen Mazdrashki <kamenim@samba.org>
We have ldb_msg_find_attr_as_* calls which do exactly the same. Therefore this
reduces only code redundancies.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This structure is intended to hold context-dependent data.
Syntax-conversion and object-conversion functions need
that data to convert objects and attributes from drs-to-ldb
and ldb-to-drs correctly.
For instance: ATTID value depends on whether we are converting
object from partition different that Schema partition.
Few comments split on several lines also...
(Sorry Metze, I know you hate reviewing "and this, and that"
type of patches, but those are just cosmetics)
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
this replaces "return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR" with "return ldb_operr(ldb)"
in places in the dsdb code where we don't already explicitly set an
error string. This should make is much easier to track down dsdb
module bugs that result in an operations error.
It was reported by aatanasov that we kept around one whole schema per
modification made. This does not fix that, but I hope moves us closer
to a fix
The most important part of the fix is that:
- if (schema_out != schema_in) {
- talloc_unlink(schema_in, ldb);
- }
was the wrong way around. This is now handled in the schema_set calls.
Andrew Bartlett
Especially the "free"s after "ldb_msg_diff" are very important since the diff
message is allocated on the long-living LDB context.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer <mdw@samba.org>
The problem here is that if the schema has been modified on the source
domain, there may be attributes that appear over DRS with 0 values (to
indicate that any existing values on the target should be deleted).
This would confuse the previous version of this macro.
Andrew Bartlett
O(n) search for dsdb_attribute by msDS-IntId value was
replaced by binary-search in ordered index.
I've choosen the approach of separate index on msDS-IntId values
as I think it is more clear what we are searching for.
And it should little bit faster as we can clearly determine
in which index to perform the search based on ATTID value -
ATTIDs based on prefixMap and ATTIDs based on msDS-IntId
are in separate ranges.
Other way to implement this index was to merge msDS-IntId values
in attributeID_id index.
This led me to a shorted but not so obvious implementation.
