[PATCH] SSSD fails to store users if any of the requested attribute is empty.

[Michal Židek]

https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1440

Looks like some LDAP servers are able to store empty attribute values. 
For some servers it results in syntax error, so it is probably a rare 
case (if not an error) to have such values. LDB seems to be unable to 
handle such values too, so in this patch we skip empty values and do not 
store them to local cache.

Patch is attached.

Thanks
Michal

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:27:03PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1440
>  
>  Looks like some LDAP servers are able to store empty attribute
>  values. For some servers it results in syntax error, so it is
>  probably a rare case (if not an error) to have such values. LDB
>  seems to be unable to handle such values too, so in this patch we
>  skip empty values and do not store them to local cache.
>  
>  Patch is attached.
>  
>  Thanks
>  Michal 
I double checked this scenario with Rich.

Technically an "empty" value could have been legal for cases where the string
was an octet string with a single zero byte. Treating such attribute as
if it was missing is probably the right thing to do. For the objects
we care about, this value is possible only with old server that don't do
syntaxt validation.

Ack!

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:28:25PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:27:03PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>  > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1440
>  > 
>  > Looks like some LDAP servers are able to store empty attribute
>  > values. For some servers it results in syntax error, so it is
>  > probably a rare case (if not an error) to have such values. LDB
>  > seems to be unable to handle such values too, so in this patch we
>  > skip empty values and do not store them to local cache.
>  > 
>  > Patch is attached.
>  > 
>  > Thanks
>  > Michal
>  
>  I double checked this scenario with Rich.
>  
>  Technically an "empty" value could have been legal for cases where the string
>  was an octet string with a single zero byte. Treating such attribute as
>  if it was missing is probably the right thing to do. For the objects
>  we care about, this value is possible only with old server that don't do
>  syntaxt validation.
>  
>  Ack! 
Pushed to master.

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:38:55AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:28:25PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>  > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:27:03PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>  > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1440
>  > > 
>  > > Looks like some LDAP servers are able to store empty attribute
>  > > values. For some servers it results in syntax error, so it is
>  > > probably a rare case (if not an error) to have such values. LDB
>  > > seems to be unable to handle such values too, so in this patch we
>  > > skip empty values and do not store them to local cache.
>  > > 
>  > > Patch is attached.
>  > > 
>  > > Thanks
>  > > Michal
>  > 
>  > I double checked this scenario with Rich.
>  > 
>  > Technically an "empty" value could have been legal for cases where the
> string
>  > was an octet string with a single zero byte. Treating such attribute as
>  > if it was missing is probably the right thing to do. For the objects
>  > we care about, this value is possible only with old server that don't do
>  > syntaxt validation.
>  > 
>  > Ack!
>  
>  Pushed to master. 
The commit was pushed to sssd-1-9 at the same time it was pushed to
master. I also pushed it to sssd-1-8 now as we just had a user hitting
the problem on #sssd apparently.