HI!
Moving this thread here to openldap-devel because it's not a usage
question anymore:
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-techni...@openldap.org/message/E4BK5DA5DUAUYLJT6DRGKV45SQBZJ5XZ/
TL;DR:
1. Would you consider the attached patch as a valid solution?
2. Improving slapo-constraint would also help.
On 8/13/21 10:59 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 8/13/21 1:51 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
>> Michael Ströder wrote:
>>> Let there be ACLs with dn.regex="..", attrs=foo,bar and val.regex=".."
>>> in the <what> clauses.
>>>
>>> Obviously depending on complexity of regex-pattern and length of DNs /
>>> avals the regex checking is more expensive than equality checking of attrs=.
>>>
>>> Can I improve ACL performance by order of <what> clauses or are they
>>> processed in fixed order anyway? If in fixed order, which one?
>>
>> The order is fixed, in order of increasing granularity. DN first,
>> attribute next, value-specific last.
>
> Is this order implemented in function slap_acl_get() in acl.c?
> The last seems to be filter= after val=. Right?
>
>> That is the only order that makes logical sense.
>
> Why?
>
> IMHO attrs= should be checked first because
>
> dn.regex=".."
> val.regex=".."
> filter=".."
>
> are all potentially way more CPU-intensive than checking attrs= against
> a simple hash-map.
First tests (OpenLDAP 2.5/master) show with customer ACLs reading all
attrs of 100k user entries and one huge group entry takes
2m23.459s with standard acl.c
but only
1m22.718s with patched acl.c which evaluates attrs= before dn.regex= and
val.regex=.
The reason for improved performance here is that the test data has one
really big group entry (100k members) with expensive ACLs on
uniqueMember attribute. Thus quickly skipping the ACLs with
attrs=uniqueMember saves lots of CPU.
Yes, the tests are somewhat artificial and optimizing the clients is
also needed. But anyway I'd like to avoid clients accidently causing
unneeded load. And I expect this to also improve things for lots of
smaller groups in real-world usage.
Ciao, Michael.
P.S.: The uniqueMember-ACLs are so complex because the original author
wanted to work-around deficiencies of slapo-constraint. Have a
set-relation for fully checking partical sets would make this problem go
away...
P.P.S.: Before you ask: These are *not* tests with Æ-DIR ACLs.
P.P.P.S: I like the new etime= logging. :-)
diff --git a/servers/slapd/acl.c b/servers/slapd/acl.c
index ac00c4163..4db0c9bc2 100644
--- a/servers/slapd/acl.c
+++ b/servers/slapd/acl.c
@@ -545,6 +545,14 @@ slap_acl_get(
if ( a != frontendDB->be_acl && state->as_fe_done )
state->as_fe_done++;
+ if ( a->acl_attrs && !ad_inlist( desc, a->acl_attrs ) ) {
+ matches->dn_data[0].rm_so = -1;
+ matches->dn_data[0].rm_eo = -1;
+ matches->val_data[0].rm_so = -1;
+ matches->val_data[0].rm_eo = -1;
+ continue;
+ }
+
if ( a->acl_dn_pat.bv_len || ( a->acl_dn_style != ACL_STYLE_REGEX )) {
if ( a->acl_dn_style == ACL_STYLE_REGEX ) {
Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_ACL, "=> dnpat: [%d] %s nsub: %d\n",
@@ -605,14 +613,6 @@ slap_acl_get(
*count );
}
- if ( a->acl_attrs && !ad_inlist( desc, a->acl_attrs ) ) {
- matches->dn_data[0].rm_so = -1;
- matches->dn_data[0].rm_eo = -1;
- matches->val_data[0].rm_so = -1;
- matches->val_data[0].rm_eo = -1;
- continue;
- }
-
/* Is this ACL only for a specific value? */
if ( a->acl_attrval.bv_val ) {
if ( val == NULL ) {
