[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#8335) MDB_MULTIPLE issues
> On 07/12/15 10:14, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Put(0 data items, MDB_MULTIPLE) stores 1 item. The doc does
>> not warn against 0 items. I suggest supporting 0 items, it
>> is a commonly supported convenience elsewhere (e.g. memcpy).
> I.e. supporting it as a no-op. But on second thought I think
> that's misleading and EINVAL is better: If the key doesn't exist,
> this is an attempt to create a key with no data. Unsupported.
> Bryan Matsuo just posted a test case to openldap-technical.
EINVAL makes sense here.
> datacount > UINT_MAX is truncated to unsigned int:
> data.mv_size = 0x100000002 puts 2 items.
> datacount * datasize can exceed UINT_MAX, which mdb_page_spill()
> truncates to unsigned int. Such a massive put() will likely
> fail anyway, but it should at least try to spill properly first.
We should probably check if mv_size is greater than UINT_MAX and return
EINVAL. (Or ERANGE.)
>> Why does MDB_MULTIPLE require a cursor? mdb_put() rejects it.
Because get only works with a cursor.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/