Hi,
Samba 4.8.0 is scheduled for Thursday, March 1 2018. The first release candidate is scheduled for Thursday, January 11 2018, this means, the v4-8 branches will be branched from master at this point. Please see https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Release_Planning_for_Samba_4.8 for details. Given the fact that Christmas/New Year will cross the road, we should start to work on the release notes asap. Please feel free to update WHATSNEW.txt or to provide hints/information to me. Thanks! Cheers, Karolin -- Karolin Seeger https://samba.org/~kseeger/ Release Manager Samba Team https://samba.org Team Lead Samba SerNet https://sernet.de |
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 10:23:23 CET Karolin Seeger via samba-technical
wrote: > Hi, > > Samba 4.8.0 is scheduled for Thursday, March 1 2018. > > The first release candidate is scheduled for Thursday, January 11 2018, > this means, the v4-8 branches will be branched from master at this point. > > Please see > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Release_Planning_for_Samba_4.8 > for details. > > Given the fact that Christmas/New Year will cross the road, we should > start to work on the release notes asap. Please feel free to update > WHATSNEW.txt or to provide hints/information to me. Reminder: We need a release of libldb before Samba 4.8.0rc1! :-) Andreas -- Andreas Schneider GPG-ID: CC014E3D Samba Team [hidden email] www.samba.org |
Am 09.01.2018 um 13:22 schrieb Andreas Schneider via samba-technical:
> On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 10:23:23 CET Karolin Seeger via samba-technical > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Samba 4.8.0 is scheduled for Thursday, March 1 2018. >> >> The first release candidate is scheduled for Thursday, January 11 2018, >> this means, the v4-8 branches will be branched from master at this point. >> >> Please see >> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Release_Planning_for_Samba_4.8 >> for details. >> >> Given the fact that Christmas/New Year will cross the road, we should >> start to work on the release notes asap. Please feel free to update >> WHATSNEW.txt or to provide hints/information to me. > > Reminder: We need a release of libldb before Samba 4.8.0rc1! :-) Andrew, do we want to consider this? https://git.samba.org/samba.git/?p=mdw/samba.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/ldb_schema.new for https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8929 (But don't push it yet) metze |
On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 00:17 +0100, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Am 09.01.2018 um 13:22 schrieb Andreas Schneider via samba-technical: > > On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 10:23:23 CET Karolin Seeger via samba-technical > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Samba 4.8.0 is scheduled for Thursday, March 1 2018. > > > > > > The first release candidate is scheduled for Thursday, January 11 2018, > > > this means, the v4-8 branches will be branched from master at this point. > > > > > > Please see > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Release_Planning_for_Samba_4.8 > > > for details. > > > > > > Given the fact that Christmas/New Year will cross the road, we should > > > start to work on the release notes asap. Please feel free to update > > > WHATSNEW.txt or to provide hints/information to me. > > > > Reminder: We need a release of libldb before Samba 4.8.0rc1! :-) > > I know :-) > > Andrew, do we want to consider this? > https://git.samba.org/samba.git/?p=mdw/samba.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/ldb_schema.new > for https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8929 > > (But don't push it yet) Are there any implications for the O() complexity of operations on very large lists? Also, if we do this I would like to change repl_meta_data to not use IGNORE_SINGLE_VALUE_CHECK on creating a backlink and use the attached to check it using binary. However that might also have O() implications. Douglas, Can you take a look at this? You did a lot of work here. TLDR: Here be dragons. Thanks, Andrew Bartlett > metze > > > -- Andrew Bartlett https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team https://samba.org Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba |
On 10/01/18 12:40, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 00:17 +0100, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >> Am 09.01.2018 um 13:22 schrieb Andreas Schneider via samba-technical: >>> Reminder: We need a release of libldb before Samba 4.8.0rc1! :-) >> >> I know :-) >> >> Andrew, do we want to consider this? >> https://git.samba.org/samba.git/?p=mdw/samba.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/ldb_schema.new >> for https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8929 >> >> (But don't push it yet) > > Does it pass all the tests (a full autobuild)? > > Are there any implications for the O() complexity of operations on very > large lists? > > Also, if we do this I would like to change repl_meta_data to not use > IGNORE_SINGLE_VALUE_CHECK on creating a backlink and use the attached > to check it using binary. However that might also have O() > implications. > > Douglas, > > Can you take a look at this? You did a lot of work here. There are definitely bits we want no matter what (e.g. this @@ -265,56 +283,62 @@ int ldb_msg_find_common_values(struct ldb_context *ldb, } values = talloc_array(mem_ctx, struct ldb_val, el->num_values); if (values == NULL) { return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; } values2 = talloc_array(mem_ctx, struct ldb_val, el2->num_values); if (values2 == NULL) { + TALLOC_FREE(values); return LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR; } ). The ldb_msg_find_duplicate_val()/ldb_msg_find_common_values() functions won't change in big-O terms. My own work in this direction got this far: http://git.catalyst.net.nz/gitweb?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=f04f93872de45625a4e55bb63b13e4c69525b24b and then stopped. I can't remember why. It has been a long 7 months. regards, Douglas |
On 10/01/18 17:23, Douglas Bagnall via samba-technical wrote:
> My own work in this direction got this far: > > http://git.catalyst.net.nz/gitweb?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=f04f93872de45625a4e55bb63b13e4c69525b24b > Matthias, I think you will need to use a schema aware comparison for sorting the lists, as I attempt to do in the linked patch. Otherwise the bisections and such will fail. For example, if you are looking for case-insensitive duplicates in {A b C c d}, and the list is sorted with ldb_val_cmp(), you would see {A C b c d} and the duplicate C-c would be separated and thus missed by the optimised algorithm. Douglas |
In reply to this post by Samba - samba-technical mailing list
Hi,
this is the patch to create ldb-1.3.1 as is, without additional changes. Please review and push:-) Thanks! metze |
In reply to this post by Samba - samba-technical mailing list
Am 10.01.2018 um 00:40 schrieb Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical:
> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 00:17 +0100, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >> Am 09.01.2018 um 13:22 schrieb Andreas Schneider via samba-technical: >>> On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 10:23:23 CET Karolin Seeger via samba-technical >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Samba 4.8.0 is scheduled for Thursday, March 1 2018. >>>> >>>> The first release candidate is scheduled for Thursday, January 11 2018, >>>> this means, the v4-8 branches will be branched from master at this point. >>>> >>>> Please see >>>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Release_Planning_for_Samba_4.8 >>>> for details. >>>> >>>> Given the fact that Christmas/New Year will cross the road, we should >>>> start to work on the release notes asap. Please feel free to update >>>> WHATSNEW.txt or to provide hints/information to me. >>> >>> Reminder: We need a release of libldb before Samba 4.8.0rc1! :-) >> >> I know :-) >> >> Andrew, do we want to consider this? >> https://git.samba.org/samba.git/?p=mdw/samba.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/ldb_schema.new >> for https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8929 >> >> (But don't push it yet) > > Does it pass all the tests (a full autobuild)? > > Are there any implications for the O() complexity of operations on very > large lists? > > Also, if we do this I would like to change repl_meta_data to not use > IGNORE_SINGLE_VALUE_CHECK on creating a backlink and use the attached > to check it using binary. However that might also have O() > implications. > > Douglas, > > Can you take a look at this? You did a lot of work here. > > TLDR: Here be dragons. it seems it's not completely fixed in 4.7.4. Please have a look at my work in progress branch at: https://git.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v4-7-duplicate-links metze |
In reply to this post by Samba - samba-technical mailing list
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:48:10PM +0100, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> Please review and push:-) pushed. -slow -- Ralph Boehme, Samba Team https://samba.org/ Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH https://sernet.de/en/samba/ |
In reply to this post by Samba - samba-technical mailing list
What kind of symptoms were you observing and how were they occurring?
As a note, some of the check disabling that you are fiddling around with is probably more broad than necessary in part due to the strange requirements necessary because of DN+Binary attributes. Duplicate DNs are allowed with different binary data, which intentionally causes duplicate backlinks pointing to the same objects. Cheers, Garming On 11/01/18 11:51, Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical wrote: > I'm currently fighting with duplicate linked attributes again, > it seems it's not completely fixed in 4.7.4. > > Please have a look at my work in progress branch at: > https://git.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v4-7-duplicate-links > > metze > > |
Hi Garming,
> What kind of symptoms were you observing and how were they occurring? On some DC some forward links are stored multiple times (I saw 1-5 additional values) with exactly the same low level value (checked with --reveal --extended-dn). And there was also a group where no linked nor non-linked attributes are changed. I fixed this with dbcheck of 4.7.4 and verified with ldapcmp that everything was fine, but a few days later these appeared again (without any origin changed on at least one group). > As a note, some of the check disabling that you are fiddling around with > is probably more broad than necessary in part due to the strange > requirements necessary because of DN+Binary attributes. Duplicate DNs > are allowed with different binary data, which intentionally causes > duplicate backlinks pointing to the same objects. Yes, I found that, that's why I only set the new flag for backlinks. BTW: my branch passed private autobuilds even with the abort() calls in place. I'll try to run this in the customer environment with a panic action in order to find which code path triggers the problem as I'm not yet able to reproduce it at will. metze > Cheers, > > Garming > > On 11/01/18 11:51, Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical wrote: >> I'm currently fighting with duplicate linked attributes again, >> it seems it's not completely fixed in 4.7.4. >> >> Please have a look at my work in progress branch at: >> https://git.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v4-7-duplicate-links >> >> metze >> >> > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |