svn commit: samba r18978 - in branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/lib/ldb/common: .

simo idra at samba.org
Fri Sep 29 13:03:37 GMT 2006


On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 20:44 -0700, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 18:53 -0400, simo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 17:06 +0000, abartlet at samba.org wrote:
> > > Author: abartlet
> > > Date: 2006-09-28 17:06:38 +0000 (Thu, 28 Sep 2006)
> > > New Revision: 18978
> > > 
> > > WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=18978
> > > 
> > > Log:
> > > Fix bug found by:
> > > http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testing/c06/ldapv3/
> > > 
> > > The issue here is that if the UTF8 conversion fails, because this
> > > isn't actually UTF8 data, then we need to do a binary compare instead.
> > 
> > I think we should just fail. Why should we compare wrong data anyway?
> > Can you give me a valid case where we want to allow invalid utf8
> > strings?
> 
> Imagine a qsort() function, based on this comparison:  What would happen
> if two strings always returned '-1' against each other, even if
> reversed?

They are invalid utf8 strings, we must not have them on in our tree in
the first place.
If the user sends in an invalid utf8 string for comparison I don't care
either, it's the user fault.

> I'm not sure there is a valid way to fail this, and given this is the
> default comparison function, a binary compare seems reasonable to me...

No, the more I think about it the more I think we should fail the
comparison, and we also need a way to report failure probably.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
http://samba.org



More information about the samba-cvs mailing list