Hi,

sadly, things are not as rosy as I exepected...

I have written a few tests to check if we correctly detect cycles while processing a search, and at some point, I found that cycle are not an issue at all. But wait, it's not a good news :/

Let's say you have the following entries :

cn=test
  cn=foo,cn=test
    cn=barAlias,cn=foo,cn=test -> cn=bar,cn=test
  cn=bar,cn=test
    cn=dohAlias,cn=foo,cn=test -> cn=doh,cn=test
  cn=doh,cn=test

Logically, doing a SUBTREE search on cn=foo,cn=test, you should get the following entries :
cn=foo,cn=test
cn=bar,cn=test
cn=doh,cn=test

This is *not* what we get. Currently, you'll have :
cn=foo,cn=test
cn=bar,cn=test

The second alias dereferencing is never done.

Obviously, it helps when it come sto avoid cycle, but this is certainly not the expected behavior.

Now, if we want to do alias chasing on the server, we will have to modify the way we handle alias : each one of them will issue a new search, wth a new cursor.

Hopefully, stacking the aliases to be processed works well with the fact that we have to stack the aliases for cycle detection. One possible solution would be to process this stack alias after alias, and if we get back an alias, we add it in the stack if it's not already present (otherwise, that means we have a cycle).

In our sample, we will have the following stack :
() : empty stack
(cn=barAlias,cn=foo,cn=test) : first alias met
-> here, we have processed all the entries for the initial search
  [cn=foo,cn=test]
  [cn=bar,cn=test] (the dereferenced alias)
-> now, we get the leftmost element in the stack, and launch a new search
(<cn=barAlias,cn=foo,cn=test>) : this alias is being processed, thus the <>
(<cn=barAlias,cn=foo,cn=test>, cn=dohAlias,cn=foo,cn=test) : second alias met -> again, all the entries have been processed, we take the next alias in the stack
  [cn=doh,cn=test]
(<cn=barAlias,cn=foo,cn=test>, <cn=dohAlias,cn=foo,cn=test>) : second alias met
-> there are no further entries. We are done

Seems to work... Did I miss something ?

--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com

Reply via email to