|
|
|
|
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_4.8for 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.orgTeam 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! :-)
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.newfor 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)
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.
Thanks,
Andrew Bartlett
> metze
>
>
>
--
Andrew Bartlett
https://samba.org/~abartlet/Authentication Developer, Samba Team https://samba.orgSamba 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=f04f93872de45625a4e55bb63b13e4c69525b24band 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.
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-linksmetze
|
|
|
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
|
|
Locked
signature.asc (853 bytes)