[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [JunkMail] Re: Wishes for set ACLs
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
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support