On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:05:43PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:59:09PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:44:46PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > A RHEL customer was hitting this issue. To reproduce, just enable the
> > > matching rule and request a
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:59:09PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:44:46PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > A RHEL customer was hitting this issue. To reproduce, just enable the
> > matching rule and request an empty group.
>
> ACK.
>
> But I think the main problem is that we
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:44:46PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> A RHEL customer was hitting this issue. To reproduce, just enable the
> matching rule and request an empty group.
ACK.
But I think the main problem is that we are a bit inconsistent handling
ENOENT and the return values. If haven't c
A RHEL customer was hitting this issue. To reproduce, just enable the
matching rule and request an empty group.
>From 143f2b5a87208508d2c5acb4dd7866c3ea52857c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jakub Hrozek
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:38:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] LDAP: Initialize user count for AD match
