[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: ITS #7161, ppolicy pwdFailureTime resolution should be better than 1 second
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:58:39PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> I haven't seen any response to this updated patch I submitted last week;
> is this now something that would be considered for integration, or are
> there any other changes you'd like to see first?
Still looking for some feedback on this; good to go, needs work, or even
just don't want this enhancement...
Thanks...
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:09:18PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:51:02PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> >
> > > You need to actually use microseconds, since the time-increment is
> > > only unique on the local server and will not guarantee uniqueness in a
> > > replication scenario.
> >
> > Attached is an updated patch for this ITS which uses microseconds rather
> > than the time-increment, maintains the semantics of "now" being when the
> > code is called rather than when the operation began, and copies the
> > first timestamp to create a second with microseconds rather than
> > redundantly calling slapd_timestamp.
> >
> > Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed or changed.
> >
> > Thanks...
> >
>
> > From 4db8660f6616a70a67feba1e07ee6f866014b1d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org>
> > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:47:34 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] ITS#7161 ppolicy pwdFailureTime resolution should be better
> > than 1 second
> >
> > ---
> > servers/slapd/overlays/ppolicy.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/servers/slapd/overlays/ppolicy.c b/servers/slapd/overlays/ppolicy.c
> > index 83aa099..f8b7335 100644
> > --- a/servers/slapd/overlays/ppolicy.c
> > +++ b/servers/slapd/overlays/ppolicy.c
> > @@ -911,8 +911,11 @@ ppolicy_bind_response( Operation *op, SlapReply *rs )
> > int ngut = -1, warn = -1, age, rc;
> > Attribute *a;
> > time_t now, pwtime = (time_t)-1;
> > + struct lutil_tm now_tm;
> > + struct lutil_timet now_usec;
> > char nowstr[ LDAP_LUTIL_GENTIME_BUFSIZE ];
> > - struct berval timestamp;
> > + char nowstr_usec[ LDAP_LUTIL_GENTIME_BUFSIZE+8 ];
> > + struct berval timestamp, timestamp_usec;
> > BackendInfo *bi = op->o_bd->bd_info;
> > Entry *e;
> >
> > @@ -929,11 +932,20 @@ ppolicy_bind_response( Operation *op, SlapReply *rs )
> > return SLAP_CB_CONTINUE;
> > }
> >
> > - now = slap_get_time(); /* stored for later consideration */
> > + ldap_pvt_gettime(&now_tm); /* stored for later consideration */
> > + lutil_tm2time(&now_tm, &now_usec);
> > + now = now_usec.tt_sec;
> > timestamp.bv_val = nowstr;
> > timestamp.bv_len = sizeof(nowstr);
> > slap_timestamp( &now, ×tamp );
> >
> > + /* Separate timestamp for pwdFailureTime with microsecond granularity */
> > + strcpy(nowstr_usec, nowstr);
> > + timestamp_usec.bv_val = nowstr_usec;
> > + timestamp_usec.bv_len = timestamp.bv_len;
> > + snprintf( timestamp_usec.bv_val + timestamp_usec.bv_len-1, sizeof(".123456Z"), ".%06dZ", now_usec.tt_usec );
> > + timestamp_usec.bv_len += STRLENOF(".123456");
> > +
> > if ( rs->sr_err == LDAP_INVALID_CREDENTIALS ) {
> > int i = 0, fc = 0;
> >
> > @@ -946,8 +958,8 @@ ppolicy_bind_response( Operation *op, SlapReply *rs )
> > m->sml_values = ch_calloc( sizeof(struct berval), 2 );
> > m->sml_nvalues = ch_calloc( sizeof(struct berval), 2 );
> >
> > - ber_dupbv( &m->sml_values[0], ×tamp );
> > - ber_dupbv( &m->sml_nvalues[0], ×tamp );
> > + ber_dupbv( &m->sml_values[0], ×tamp_usec );
> > + ber_dupbv( &m->sml_nvalues[0], ×tamp_usec );
> > m->sml_next = mod;
> > mod = m;
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.3.2
> >
>