Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Register
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
O
OpenLDAP
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Requirements
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Locked files
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Test cases
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package registry
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Code review analytics
Issue analytics
Insights
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Jaak Ristioja
OpenLDAP
Commits
ed0949c7
Commit
ed0949c7
authored
20 years ago
by
Pierangelo Masarati
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
work out an issue with chk_referrals and back-relay/rwm; this looks like the best compromise
parent
7e310a62
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
Tags containing commit
No related merge requests found
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
servers/slapd/back-relay/init.c
+8
-2
8 additions, 2 deletions
servers/slapd/back-relay/init.c
servers/slapd/back-relay/op.c
+19
-0
19 additions, 0 deletions
servers/slapd/back-relay/op.c
with
27 additions
and
2 deletions
servers/slapd/back-relay/init.c
+
8
−
2
View file @
ed0949c7
...
...
@@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ relay_back_initialize( BackendInfo *bi )
bi
->
bi_db_init
=
relay_back_db_init
;
bi
->
bi_db_config
=
relay_back_db_config
;
bi
->
bi_db_open
=
relay_back_db_open
;
bi
->
bi_db_close
=
0
/* relay_back_db_close */
;
#if 0
bi->bi_db_close =relay_back_db_close;
#endif
bi
->
bi_db_destroy
=
relay_back_db_destroy
;
bi
->
bi_op_bind
=
relay_back_op_bind
;
...
...
@@ -48,12 +50,16 @@ relay_back_initialize( BackendInfo *bi )
bi
->
bi_op_modrdn
=
relay_back_op_modrdn
;
bi
->
bi_op_add
=
relay_back_op_add
;
bi
->
bi_op_delete
=
relay_back_op_delete
;
bi
->
bi_op_abandon
=
0
/* relay_back_op_abandon */
;
#if 0 /* causes a deadlock */
bi->bi_op_abandon = relay_back_op_abandon;
#endif
bi
->
bi_op_cancel
=
relay_back_op_cancel
;
bi
->
bi_extended
=
relay_back_op_extended
;
bi
->
bi_entry_release_rw
=
relay_back_entry_release_rw
;
bi
->
bi_entry_get_rw
=
relay_back_entry_get_rw
;
#if 0 /* see comment in op.c */
bi->bi_chk_referrals = relay_back_chk_referrals;
#endif
bi
->
bi_operational
=
relay_back_operational
;
bi
->
bi_has_subordinates
=
relay_back_has_subordinates
;
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
servers/slapd/back-relay/op.c
+
19
−
0
View file @
ed0949c7
...
...
@@ -522,6 +522,13 @@ relay_back_entry_get_rw( struct slap_op *op, struct berval *ndn,
}
/*
* NOTE: even the existence of this function is questionable: we cannot
* pass the bi_chk_referrals() call thru the rwm overlay because there
* is no way to rewrite the req_dn back; but then relay_back_chk_referrals()
* is passing the target database a DN that likely does not belong to its
* naming context... mmmh.
*/
int
relay_back_chk_referrals
(
struct
slap_op
*
op
,
struct
slap_rep
*
rs
)
{
...
...
@@ -529,10 +536,22 @@ relay_back_chk_referrals( struct slap_op *op, struct slap_rep *rs )
int
rc
=
0
;
bd
=
relay_back_select_backend
(
op
,
rs
,
LDAP_SUCCESS
);
/* FIXME: this test only works if there are no overlays, so
* it is nearly useless; if made stricter, no nested back-relays
* can be instantiated... too bad. */
if
(
bd
==
NULL
||
bd
==
op
->
o_bd
)
{
return
0
;
}
/* no nested back-relays... */
if
(
overlay_is_over
(
bd
)
)
{
slap_overinfo
*
oi
=
(
slap_overinfo
*
)
bd
->
bd_info
->
bi_private
;
if
(
oi
->
oi_orig
==
op
->
o_bd
->
bd_info
)
{
return
0
;
}
}
if
(
bd
->
be_chk_referrals
)
{
BackendDB
*
be
=
op
->
o_bd
;
slap_callback
cb
;
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment