https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8341
--- Comment #7 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
• bfe3d19e
by OndÅ™ej KuznÃk at 2021-09-09T10:26:06+01:00
ITS#8341 Allow normalised values for namingContexts in cn=monitor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9619
Issue ID: 9619
Summary: mdb_env_copy2 with MDB_CP_COMPACT in mdb.master3
produces corrupt mdb file
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.29
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
When copying an LMDB database with mdb_env_copy2 with the MDB_CP_COMPACT with
mdb.master3, the resulting mdb file seems to be corrupt and when using it in
LMDB, I get segmentation faults. Copying without the compacting flag seems to
work fine. I apologize, I know this is not a very good issue report, as I
haven't had a chance to actually narrow this down to a more
reproducible/isolated case, or look for how to patch. I thought I would report
in case there are any ideas on what could cause this. The segmentation faults
always seem to be memory write faults (as opposed to try fault on trying to
read). Or perhaps the current backup/copying functionality is eventually going
to be replaced by incremental backup/copying anyway
(https://twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1315651814096875520). I'll try to update
this if I get a chance to investigate more, but otherwise feel free to
ignore/consider low-priority since the work around is easy.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6467
--- Comment #11 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE25:
commit a00ec090bdcdfdb390ace2238f581ad147e5974f
Author: OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net>
Date: Tue Jun 1 13:56:58 2021 +0100
ITS#6467 Free uuid list after we're finished
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6467
--- Comment #10 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
commit 726a2031334d066a6e463d7b992b6ca7b390e631
Author: OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net>
Date: Tue Jun 1 13:56:58 2021 +0100
ITS#6467 Free uuid list after we're finished
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9571
Issue ID: 9571
Summary: Add Behera Draft 8 compatibility flag to ppolicy
overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: mhardin(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
The RFC for Behera Password Policy, Draft, 10 changes modification semantics of
certain policy attributes from those that were in effect in Draft 8. To
preserve compatibility with applications that depend on the Draft 8 semantics,
a compatibility flag needs to be added to the ppolicy configuration that
restores the Draft 8 semantics.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8962
--- Comment #5 from Mehmet gelisin <mehmetgelisin(a)aol.com> ---
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://www-look-4.com/
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.compilatori.com/
RE24:
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://www.wearelondonmade.com/
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00 http://www.jopspeech.com/
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783 http://joerg.li/
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
RE24: http://connstr.net/
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://embermanchester.uk/
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.slipstone.co.uk/
RE24:
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.logoarts.co.uk/
but unfortunatley the FAQ software breaks Apache when you try and
delete an answer. I think the better solution is just to remove the FAQ
software completely.
I experimented a bit with a service file. It seems to work well with
either Type=forking and NotifyAccess=all, or Type=notify and
http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/
ExecStart=slapd -d none. The latter (disabling forking) is definitely
what systemd upstream recommends.
In either case, MAINPID= didn't actually seem to help anything.
NotifyAccess=main has a chicken-and-egg problem, because systemd needs
to know the main PID in order for us to send it the message containing
the PID! :) I think the only reasonable way to leave forking enabled
https://waytowhatsnext.com/
would be to also require a PIDFile= setting, which solves that problem.
But I'd rather sidestep the entire thing, omit MAINPID= as well, and
Looking at the systemctl output I still think STATUS= is redundant and
could be omitted.
https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/
So I guess my recommendation for the notify call boils down to:
rc = sd_notify( 1, "READY=1" );
and a slapd.service along the lines of:
[Unit]
Description=OpenLDAP server
[Service]
Type=notify
ExecStart=%LIBEXECDIR%/slapd -h 'ldap:/// ldapi:///' -d0
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
(basically identical to the example in systemd.service(5).)
Side note: the version message from slapd appears in the journal twice,
once with the timestamp and once without...
I experimented a bit with a service file. It seems to work well with
either Type=forking and NotifyAccess=all, or Type=notify and
ExecStart=slapd -d none. The latter (disabling forking) is definitely
what systemd upstream recommends.
In either case, MAINPID= didn't actually seem to help anything.
NotifyAccess=main has a chicken-and-egg problem, because systemd needs
to know the main PID in order for us to send it the message containing
the PID! :) I think the only reasonable way to leave forking enabled
http://www.iu-bloomington.com/
would be to also require a PIDFile= setting, which solves that problem.
But I'd rather sidestep the entire thing, omit MAINPID= as well, and
Looking at the systemctl output I still think STATUS= is redundant and
could be omitted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6598
--- Comment #20 from Mehmet gelisin <mehmetgelisin(a)aol.com> ---
If non-anonymous access is needed, the slapd.access(5) manpage needs an
> update too. (Or instead, to avoid duplicating text.) Currently it just
> says: http://www-look-4.com/
>
> Auth (=x) privileges are also required on the authzTo attribute
> of the authorizing identity and/or on the authzFrom attribute of
> the authorized identity. http://www.compilatori.com/
>
> but it doesn't mention to who needs that auth access.
It http://www.wearelondonmade.com/ is the authenticated ID that needs access
in both cases. On further
thought I think it is correct that the access is checked without
reference to whether that ID has access to entry and parent entries,
as (particularly in the case of authzFrom) http://www.jopspeech.com/ the
authenticated ID may
not have any direct access to the entry whose ID it is about to
assume.
http://joerg.li/
Thus, if principal A has authenticated and wishes to perform an
operation using principal B's authorisation, the access required is:
A needs auth access to authzTo in its own entry if that attribute
is involved in giving A permission to act for B. http://connstr.net/
A needs auth access to authzFrom in B's entry if that attribute
is involved in giving A permission to act for B.
The rules are the same whether using a SASL authorization identity or
using a ProxyAuth control on an LDAP operation. http://embermanchester.uk/
Thus I think my original report was wrong. This is a documentation
issue, not a bug.
If non-anonymous access is needed, the slapd.access(5) manpage needs an
http://www.slipstone.co.uk/
> update too. (Or instead, to avoid duplicating text.) Currently it just
> says:
>
> Auth (=x) privileges are also required on the authzTo attribute http://www.logoarts.co.uk/
> of the authorizing identity and/or on the authzFrom attribute of
> the authorized identity.
>
> but it doesn't mention to who needs that auth access.
http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/
It is the authenticated ID that needs access in both cases. On further
thought I think it is correct that the access is checked without
reference to whether that ID has access to entry and parent entries,
as (particularly in the case of authzFrom) the https://waytowhatsnext.com/
authenticated ID may
not have any direct access to the entry whose ID it is about to
assume.
Thus, if principal A has authenticated and wishes to perform an
https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/
operation using principal B's authorisation, the access required is:
A needs auth access to authzTo in its own entry if that attribute
is involved in giving A permission to act for B.
A needs auth access to authzFrom in B's entry if that attribute
is involved in giving A permission to act for B.
The rules are the same whether using a SASL authorization identity or
using a ProxyAuth control on an LDAP operation. http://www.iu-bloomington.com/
Thus I think my original report was wrong. This is a documentation
issue, not a bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.