idra at samba.org
Mon Sep 25 03:43:22 GMT 2006
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 13:18 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> > No, I don't think we should allow this as it may conceal a programming
> > error in setting the attribute.
> hmm, I don't really understand this. Does this imply that
> ldb_msg_add_string(ldb, "comment", "");
well actually I am more concerned about things like:
ldb_msg_add_empty(ldb, "comment", LDB_FLAG_MOD_REPLACE);
and then forgetting to really set the new value.
> is a programming error, whereas
> ldb_msg_add_string(ldb, "comment", "foo");
> isn't ?
> I could understand that NULL in that place is a programming error, but
> I can't see how "" is an error.
See the ldb_msg_add_empty() example.
> > I'm just being defensive here, but I don't think the gain we have
> > through this is worth the possible loss.
> well, I'm pretty sure that right now we have real bugs due to
> this. Just look at all the calls to samdb_msg_add_string(), which
> calls ldb_msg_add_string(). I'd be surprised to find that every one of
> those calls copes with the case where the string is zero length.
I see what you mean.
> In C APIs, the usual convention is that there is a strong separation
> of NULL strings from non-NULL strings, but no big distinction between
> strings of length zero and strings of length 1.
> As an alternative, we could have a:
> call, which gives an error on empty strings as that isn't within the
> allowable syntax of "directory string" in ldap, but I think making our
> default "set a C string" function refuse strings because they have
> length zero is something that will bite us time and again :)
I have to think about this, maybe we can silently discard an empty
attribute but give out a level 0 debug error.
That might be a good enough compromise.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical