[PATCHES] Rationalizing and unifing Schannel

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Tue Feb 23 02:41:19 MST 2010

On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 10:53 -0500, simo wrote:
> I have been working on a patchset to enhance the schannel interface and
> also to make it possible to share this code between S3 and S4 again.
> The first 6 patches shouldn't be controversial.
> The last 2 patches remove the use of ldb and goes back to use a tdb for
> samba4, the comment on patch 7 explains the rationale.
> Unless there are objections I will push this patches during the week.

Except for the comments on ldb performance, which I think don't really
apply here (unlike sam.ldb, schannel.ldb does not load modules, and does
not have a very high connect rate anyway), this seems like a very
reasonable approach.  In particular, it's important to unify subsystems
like this, and the temporary nature of this DB lends itself to NDR'ed
structures and a single key lookup.  It's nice to be able to see the
details of a running server with a simple ldbsearch, but it does not
seem to be needed often. 

Anyway, I presume the TDB code is fully transaction safe etc?  

My only comment is that I would not want the ldb -> tdb conversion in
this very particular case to establish a precedent, or to come about
only because it's too hard to talk about ldb.  We do need a mature
debate about the use of ldb in Samba as a whole.

Thanks for looking at this!

Andrew Bartlett
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100223/e2725dd7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list