Possible bug in ldap_get_values_len?

2010-10-18 Thread Edward Z. Yang
Hello all, I was mucking around with OpenLDAP and noticed that ldap_get_values_len was returning NULL without setting a corresponding error code. Intruiged by this behavior, I did some debugging, and found that it was doing so on nsslapd-referral as generated by a Fedora 1.2.5 or 1.2.6 directory

Re: Possible bug in ldap_get_values_len?

2010-10-18 Thread Howard Chu
Edward Z. Yang wrote: Hello all, I was mucking around with OpenLDAP and noticed that ldap_get_values_len was returning NULL without setting a corresponding error code. Intruiged by this behavior, I did some debugging, and found that it was doing so on nsslapd-referral as generated by a Fedora

Re: Possible bug in ldap_get_values_len?

2010-10-18 Thread Emmanuel Lecharny
On 10/18/10 12:48 PM, Howard Chu wrote: But it's certainly stupid for the server to attach the attribute to the response with no values, since this is obviously NOT an attrsOnly search response. What about an AttributeType with an OctetString syntax ? It may have an empty value... --

Re: Possible bug in ldap_get_values_len?

2010-10-18 Thread Edward Z. Yang
Excerpts from Howard Chu's message of Mon Oct 18 15:23:02 -0400 2010: The function would return a zero-length berval in that case. There's a difference between no values, and one value of zero length. Sure, but for the programmer, there is definitely a difference between p == NULL and *p ==

Re: Possible bug in ldap_get_values_len?

2010-10-18 Thread Howard Chu
Edward Z. Yang wrote: Excerpts from Howard Chu's message of Mon Oct 18 15:23:02 -0400 2010: The function would return a zero-length berval in that case. There's a difference between no values, and one value of zero length. Sure, but for the programmer, there is definitely a difference between