Re: [JunkMail] Re: Wishes for set ACLs

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

> Howard Chu wrote:
>
> > Argh, it's trickier than that - you also have to protect references 
> > to lutil_passwd_sasl_conn. I think we should just make 
> > lutil_passwd_sasl_conn a parameter to lutil_passwd, to avoid that 
> > issue. Also I wonder if we can just move the passwd mutex itself into 
> > lutil_passwd. It seems we need some finer granularity here.
>
>
> Ain't it protected enough by passwd_mutex?  It seems to be used 
> consistently right now (I admit a cleaner API would not require all 
> these external mutexes).

Yes, you're right.

Unfortunately there's no clean way to pass all the context pointers that 
might possibly be needed in through the existing lutil_passwd API. For 
the smbk5pwd overlay I hacked this by putting it into thread-specific 
storage. I think I'll do the same for SLAPD_SPASSWD, to eliminate that 
issue. And then move the mutex into the chk_crypt routine itself. That 
will speed up password checking overall, in the default case where crypt 
/ SASL are not being used.

--
 -- Howard Chu
 Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
 http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
 Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support