[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Subordinate ACL question



--On Thursday, November 11, 2004 12:08 AM +0100 Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it> wrote:

Luke Howard wrote:

is an error; I've never tried anything like that, so I don't know if
slapd happily ignores it or whatever it does in response, but the man
page clearly states that the <control> field {break|continue|stop} is
optional, but the <access> field [self]{<level>|<priv>} is mandatory.
I assume something like "+0" (i.e. permissions are not altered) is
implied, but I need to check the code and see if this should become a
de-facto defalt behavior or it should be explicitly enforced.



So

	by * +0 break

would be more correct?

Looking at aclparse.c it appears that "break" is supported both before
and after <who>.


Then I guess the docs need be updated, or the code modified.

Given that I was originally told to use "by * break" to do what I needed to do back in 2.1, I vote for the docs being updated, because I think the code is behaving correctly. ;)

--Quanah


--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html