Attachment 13440 Details for Bug 12855 – possible patch for master

[patch] possible patch for master

0001-dsdb-Do-not-force-a-re-index-of-sam.ldb-on-upgrade-t.patch (text/plain), 1.72 KB, created by Andrew Bartlett on 2017-07-31 22:27:16 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Andrew Bartlett

Created: 2017-07-31 22:27:16 UTC

Size: 1.72 KB

patch

obsolete

>From 4fc5a5e6c6bccb2adaf8c1de5589bfc3b6efdc31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:26:34 +1200
>Subject: [PATCH] dsdb: Do not force a re-index of sam.ldb on upgrade to 4.7
>
>This means that no compatibleFeatures or incompatibleFeatures will be honoured
>until a re-index, but that can be triggered when these features are set.
>
>New databases will still get this support.
>
>BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12855
>Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
>---
> source4/dsdb/schema/schema_set.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/source4/dsdb/schema/schema_set.c b/source4/dsdb/schema/schema_set.c
>index df27e19a944..12a3cab2743 100644
>--- a/source4/dsdb/schema/schema_set.c
>+++ b/source4/dsdb/schema/schema_set.c
>@@ -214,7 +214,27 @@ int dsdb_schema_set_indices_and_attributes(struct ldb_context *ldb,
> 		if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
> 			goto op_error;
> 		}
>-		if (mod_msg->num_elements > 0) {
>+
>+		/*
>+		 * We don't want to re-index just because we didn't
>+		 * see this flag
>+		 *
>+		 * DO NOT backport this logic earlier than 4.7, it
>+		 * isn't needed and would be dangerous before 4.6,
>+		 * where we add logic to samba_dsdb to manage
>+		 * @SAMBA_FEATURES_SUPPORTED and need to know if the
>+		 * DB has been re-opened by an earlier version.
>+		 *
>+		 */
>+
>+		if (mod_msg->num_elements == 1
>+		    && ldb_attr_cmp(mod_msg->elements[0].name,
>+				    SAMBA_FEATURES_SUPPORTED_FLAG) == 0) {
>+			/*
>+			 * Ignore only adding
>+			 * @SAMBA_FEATURES_SUPPORTED
>+			 */
>+		} else if (mod_msg->num_elements > 0) {
> 			/*
> 			 * Do the replace with the constructed message,
> 			 * to avoid needing a lock between this search
>-- 
>2.11.0
>

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 12855: 13440 | 13444