<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/06/2015 05:56 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:554A39BD.5060609@redhat.com" type="cite">On 05/06/2015 04:25 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: <blockquote type="cite">On 05/06/2015 03:19 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote: <blockquote type="cite">Hello Thierry, replies are inline. On 05/06/2015 02:22 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: <blockquote type="cite">On 05/06/2015 01:54 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote: <blockquote type="cite">The attached patch tries to fix <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4378">https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4378</a> After discussion with Thierry we concluded that while this issue is more complex than it seems, the transition from REPLACE to DEL/ADD operations when updating nsDS5ReplicaId should suffice for this ticket. </blockquote> Hello Martin, Few comments, you are using MOD_DEL 'replicaID' with None value. So this is going to delete all previous values and it should be equivalent to a MOD_REPL. I was thinking you wanted to retrieve the id_value and call MOD_DEL 'replicaID' <current_value>. So that if by the time you fetched the replicaId, an other replica updated the replicaId, the MOD_DEL/MOD_ADD would fail and you need a new iteration. </blockquote> Sorry I didn't know you can MOD_DEL a particular value (I'm LDAP noob I know). Will fix this. <blockquote type="cite">If replicaId was multi-valued and you want to make it single valued, you may want to do create a more complex MOD (e.g. (ldap.MOD_DELETE, 'nsDS5ReplicaId', str(value1), (ldap.MOD_DELETE, 'nsDS5ReplicaId', str(value2)...) </blockquote> AFAIK ReplicaId is single-valued (looking at the schema right now) so this shouldn't be problem. <blockquote type="cite">If it is updating successfully do you want to return 'retval' or 'retval+1' ? If several replicas try to update the replicaId of the master and the current replicaId is 1000. Replica1 successfully updates the replicaId and gets 1001 as the new value. Replica2 successfully updates the replicaId and gets 1002. The final value on master will be 1002, but replica1 will assum it is 1001. Is it a problem ? </blockquote> I studied the code in the master branch and IIUC (and please correct me if I got this wrong) nsDS5ReplicaId attribute in 'cn=replication,cn=etc,$SUFFIX' represents replicaID of the _next_ replica that will be installed. So if a replica is installed, it sets the current value of nsDS5ReplicaId as its replica ID (the function returns 'retval') and then increments it in 'cn=replication,cn=etc,$SUFFIX' entry ('retval + 1' is written to master) so that the next installed replica fetches this updated value. So the case you described should be the expected behavior. To change it would require different patch IMHO. </blockquote> Thank for your precious explanations, in fact the value in 'cn=replication,cn=etc,SUFFIX' is the next available replicaId value and is the centralized mechanism that assign unique replicaID. The risk was that several replica pick the same value. So yes it is important that the MOD_DEL specifies the previously read value so that the test/set will be atomic. If several replicas read the same value, only the faster one will use it to install the replica. thanks thierry <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">thanks thierry </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> Attaching updated patch with fixed MOD_DELETE operation. </blockquote> Hi Martin, The fix looks good to me except I think you need to do (ldap.MOD_DELETE, 'nsDS5ReplicaId', str(retval)) thanks thierry </body> </html>