[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: how to treat filters with assertion values with bad UTF8?
At 07:33 AM 7/15/2001, Stig Venaas wrote:
>I noticed that the CVS devel version segfaulted on case insensitive
>exact searches with bad UTF8 coding. This is very bad of course. I
>just fixed it in CVS. The current fix tries to treat this as if there
>were no matches and returns success. This seems correct according to
>RFC 2251 which states:
The filter component should be treated as Undefined
if the assertion value doesn't conform to the assertion
>Servers MUST NOT return errors if attribute descriptions or matching
>rule ids are not recognized, or assertion values cannot be parsed.
>More details of filter processing are given in section 7.8 of X.511
This is correct. The operational successfully matches no entries.
>I was wondering if I should perhaps use LDAP_FILTER_ERROR though.
No. Note that LDAP_FILTER_ERROR is an API error code,
not a protocol result code.