Attachment 12409 Details for Bug 12178 – patch for master

[patch] patch for master

dbcheck-rmd.patch (text/plain), 5.29 KB, created by Andrew Bartlett on 2016-08-26 03:56:41 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Andrew Bartlett

Created: 2016-08-26 03:56:41 UTC

Size: 5.29 KB

patch

obsolete

>From 1510609a01904539b650dcb5cbf965c8ecebaca4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:54:35 +1200
>Subject: [PATCH 1/2] dsdb: Allow missing a mandatory attribute from a dbcheck
> fix
>
>dbcheck of the rid pool (CN=RID Set) for another server will otherwise fail because
>rIDNextRid is not replicated, and so it not present
>
>Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>---
> source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/objectclass_attrs.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/objectclass_attrs.c b/source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/objectclass_attrs.c
>index f739c40..d21b8f7 100644
>--- a/source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/objectclass_attrs.c
>+++ b/source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/objectclass_attrs.c
>@@ -419,8 +419,13 @@ static int attr_handler2(struct oc_context *ac)
> 		}
> 	}
> 
>+	/* We skip this check under dbcheck to allow fixing of other
>+	 * attributes even if an attribute is missing.  This matters
>+	 * for CN=RID Set as the required attribute rIDNextRid is not
>+	 * replicated */
> 	if (found_must_contain[0] != NULL &&
>-	    ldb_msg_check_string_attribute(msg, "isDeleted", "TRUE") == 0) {
>+	    ldb_msg_check_string_attribute(msg, "isDeleted", "TRUE") == 0 && 
>+	    ldb_request_get_control(ac->req, DSDB_CONTROL_DBCHECK) == NULL) {
> 		ldb_asprintf_errstring(ldb, "objectclass_attrs: at least one mandatory attribute ('%s') on entry '%s' wasn't specified!",
> 				       found_must_contain[0],
> 				       ldb_dn_get_linearized(msg->dn));
>-- 
>2.8.1
>
>
>From d66c5ce4627d6edc51bc5c099903669c1f30957d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:53:19 +1200
>Subject: [PATCH 2/2] dbcheck: Abandon dbcheck if we get an error during a
> transaction
>
>Otherwise, anything that the transaction has already done to the DB will be left in the DB
>even despite the failure.  For example, if a fix wrote to the DB, but then failed a post-write
>check, then the fix will not be unrolled.
>
>This is because we do not have nested transactions in TDB
>
>Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>---
> python/samba/dbchecker.py                |  9 ++++++++-
> testprogs/blackbox/dbcheck-oldrelease.sh | 10 ++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/python/samba/dbchecker.py b/python/samba/dbchecker.py
>index e904b4a..fab0b61 100644
>--- a/python/samba/dbchecker.py
>+++ b/python/samba/dbchecker.py
>@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ from samba.common import dsdb_Dn
> from samba.dcerpc import security
> from samba.descriptor import get_wellknown_sds, get_diff_sds
> from samba.auth import system_session, admin_session
>-
>+from samba.netcmd import CommandError
>+ 
> 
> class dbcheck(object):
>     """check a SAM database for errors"""
>@@ -324,6 +325,8 @@ systemFlags: -1946157056%s""" % (dn, guid_suffix),
>             controls = controls + ["local_oid:%s:0" % dsdb.DSDB_CONTROL_DBCHECK]
>             self.samdb.delete(dn, controls=controls)
>         except Exception, err:
>+            if self.in_transaction:
>+                raise CommandError("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             self.report("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             return False
>         return True
>@@ -336,6 +339,8 @@ systemFlags: -1946157056%s""" % (dn, guid_suffix),
>             controls = controls + ["local_oid:%s:0" % dsdb.DSDB_CONTROL_DBCHECK]
>             self.samdb.modify(m, controls=controls, validate=validate)
>         except Exception, err:
>+            if self.in_transaction:
>+                raise CommandError("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             self.report("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             return False
>         return True
>@@ -353,6 +358,8 @@ newSuperior: %s""" % (str(from_dn), str(to_rdn), str(to_base)))
>             controls = controls + ["local_oid:%s:0" % dsdb.DSDB_CONTROL_DBCHECK]
>             self.samdb.rename(from_dn, to_dn, controls=controls)
>         except Exception, err:
>+            if self.in_transaction:
>+                raise CommandError("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             self.report("%s : %s" % (msg, err))
>             return False
>         return True
>diff --git a/testprogs/blackbox/dbcheck-oldrelease.sh b/testprogs/blackbox/dbcheck-oldrelease.sh
>index 1efea67..dd176cf 100755
>--- a/testprogs/blackbox/dbcheck-oldrelease.sh
>+++ b/testprogs/blackbox/dbcheck-oldrelease.sh
>@@ -186,6 +186,15 @@ check_expected_before_values() {
> }
> 
> # This should 'fail', because it returns the number of modified records
>+dbcheck_objectclass() {
>+    if [ x$RELEASE = x"release-4-1-6-partial-object" ]; then
>+	$PYTHON $BINDIR/samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs --fix --yes -H tdb://$PREFIX_ABS/${RELEASE}/private/sam.ldb --attrs=objectclass $@
>+    else
>+	return 1
>+    fi
>+}
>+
>+# This should 'fail', because it returns the number of modified records
> dbcheck() {
>        $PYTHON $BINDIR/samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs --fix --yes -H tdb://$PREFIX_ABS/${RELEASE}/private/sam.ldb $@
> }
>@@ -363,6 +372,7 @@ if [ -d $release_dir ]; then
>     testit "reindex" reindex
>     testit "current_version_mod" do_current_version_mod
>     testit "check_expected_before_values" check_expected_before_values
>+    testit_expect_failure "dbcheck_objectclass" dbcheck_objectclass
>     testit_expect_failure "dbcheck" dbcheck
>     testit "check_expected_after_values" check_expected_after_values
>     testit "check_forced_duplicate_values" check_forced_duplicate_values
>-- 
>2.8.1
>

Flags:

metze: review+

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 12178: 12406 | 12407 | 12409 | 12417 | 12418 | 12419