need a second function because of different free() routines

servers/slapd/back-ldap/back-ldap.h

@@ -192,6 +192,7 @@ extern int suffix_massage_config( struct rewrite_info *info,
 		struct berval *prnc, struct berval *nrnc);
 #endif /* ENABLE_REWRITE */
 extern int ldap_dnattr_rewrite( dncookie *dc, BerVarray a_vals );
+extern int ldap_dnattr_result_rewrite( dncookie *dc, BerVarray a_vals );
 
 LDAP_END_DECL
 

servers/slapd/back-ldap/map.c

@@ -44,6 +44,9 @@
 #include "slap.h"
 #include "back-ldap.h"
 
+#undef ldap_debug	/* silence a warning in ldap-int.h */
+#include "../../../libraries/libldap/ldap-int.h"
+
 int
 mapping_cmp ( const void *c1, const void *c2 )
 {
@@ -468,6 +471,13 @@ ldap_back_filter_map_rewrite(
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * I don't like this much, but we need two different
+ * functions because different heap managers may be
+ * in use in back-ldap/meta to reduce the amount of
+ * calls to malloc routines, and some of the free()
+ * routines may be macros with args
+ */
 int
 ldap_dnattr_rewrite(
 	dncookie		*dc,
@@ -482,33 +492,73 @@ ldap_dnattr_rewrite(
 
 	for ( i = 0; a_vals[i].bv_val != NULL; i++ ) {
 		switch ( ldap_back_dn_massage( dc, &a_vals[i], &bv ) ) {
-		case LDAP_SUCCESS:
-		case LDAP_OTHER:	/* ? */
-		default:		/* ??? */
+		case LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM:
+			/*
+			 * FIXME: need to check if it may be considered 
+			 * legal to trim values when adding/modifying;
+			 * it should be when searching (e.g. ACLs).
+			 */
+			ch_free( a_vals[i].bv_val );
+			if (last > i ) {
+				a_vals[i] = a_vals[last];
+			}
+			a_vals[last].bv_len = 0;
+			a_vals[last].bv_val = NULL;
+			last--;
+			break;
+
+		default:
 			/* leave attr untouched if massage failed */
 			if ( bv.bv_val && bv.bv_val != a_vals[i].bv_val ) {
 				ch_free( a_vals[i].bv_val );
 				a_vals[i] = bv;
 			}
 			break;
+		}
+	}
+	
+	return 0;
+}
 
+int
+ldap_dnattr_result_rewrite(
+	dncookie		*dc,
+	BerVarray		a_vals
+)
+{
+	struct berval	bv;
+	int		i, last;
+
+	for ( last = 0; a_vals[last].bv_val; last++ );
+	last--;
+
+	for ( i = 0; a_vals[i].bv_val; i++ ) {
+		switch ( ldap_back_dn_massage( dc, &a_vals[i], &bv ) ) {
 		case LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM:
 			/*
 			 * FIXME: need to check if it may be considered 
 			 * legal to trim values when adding/modifying;
-			 * it should be when searching (see ACLs).
+			 * it should be when searching (e.g. ACLs).
 			 */
-			ch_free( a_vals[i].bv_val );
-			if (last > i ) {
+			LBER_FREE( &a_vals[i].bv_val );
+			if ( last > i ) {
 				a_vals[i] = a_vals[last];
 			}
-			a_vals[last].bv_len = 0;
 			a_vals[last].bv_val = NULL;
+			a_vals[last].bv_len = 0;
 			last--;
 			break;
+
+		default:
+			/* leave attr untouched if massage failed */
+			if ( bv.bv_val && a_vals[i].bv_val != bv.bv_val ) {
+				LBER_FREE( a_vals[i].bv_val );
+				a_vals[i] = bv;
+			}
+			break;
 		}
 	}
-	
+
 	return 0;
 }
 

servers/slapd/back-ldap/search.c

@@ -519,37 +519,8 @@ ldap_build_entry(
 		 */
 		} else if ( attr->a_desc->ad_type->sat_syntax ==
 				slap_schema.si_syn_distinguishedName ) {
-			int	last, i;
+			ldap_dnattr_result_rewrite( &dc, attr->a_vals );
 
-			/*
-			 * FIXME: should use ldap_dnattr_rewrite(),
-			 * but need a different free() callback ...
-			 */
-
-			for ( last = 0; attr->a_vals[last].bv_val; last++ );
-
-			for ( i = 0; attr->a_vals[i].bv_val; i++ ) {
-				struct berval	newval = { 0, NULL };
-
-				bv = &attr->a_vals[i];
-				switch ( ldap_back_dn_massage( &dc, bv, &newval ) ) {
-				case LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM:
-					LBER_FREE( bv->bv_val );
-					if ( last > i ) {
-						*bv = attr->a_vals[last];
-					}
-					attr->a_vals[last].bv_val = NULL;
-					last--;
-					break;
-
-				default:
-					if ( newval.bv_val && bv->bv_val != newval.bv_val ) {
-						LBER_FREE( bv->bv_val );
-						*bv = newval;
-					}
-					break;
-				}
-			}
 		}
 
 		if ( normalize && last && attr->a_desc->ad_type->sat_equality &&