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.
The schema refresh operation itself starts requests from the top of the LDB
modules stack (see call "dsdb_schema_set_attributes" - search operations).
This doesn't work well when these do perform "dsdb_get_schema" calls. Since the
new schema isn't marked as "refreshed" atm (but in fact it still is - we didn't
terminate the reload/refresh yet) we could perform other calls to
"dsdb_schema_refresh" and run into serious trouble (segfault).
After a patch proposal of Nadya and some reflection I think that it's really
worth to change all tests which need a "0" "minPwdAge" to set it manually and
reset the default afterwards.
So we can finally introduce the default "minPwdAge" on provision.
Patch proposal by: Nadya Ivanova
We already pull and push 4 byte winreg type in the registry.tdb, we were just
not using full 4 bytes within the reg_object functions.
With this change we finally pass the set extended value torture test.
Guenther
fixed several bugs in error handling. the ldb context was used without
being initialised in the error paths, and several error paths did not
set an ldb error string.
the supportedSASLMechanisms opaque must live for at least as long as
the ldb, or we can crash when the first connection is torn down
Pair-Programmed-With: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
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
Although it is not currently used in implementation,
my intention is for callers to clearly state what
action they want to execute.
Currently when a caller wants to pass the call to the next
module in the chain, this flag is either omitted or 0 is used
(which is somewhat hacky, isn't it)
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
