openldap-bugs January 2008

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

36 participants
144 discussions

(ITS#5319) Rename on same DN failes
by abartlet＠samba.org 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Andrew Bartlett Version: HEAD CVS OS: Fedora 8 URL: Submission from: (NULL) (59.167.251.137) Renaming a DN to itself, whether or not changing case, fails. This should succeed, preferably for all cases, so that it is possible to change the case of an RDN. This would also assist Samba4, as AD supports these renames, and I am working on a mapping layer from OpenLDAP to Samba4. Howard Chu notes on the openldap-technical list that logic to allow this existed in the past, but appears to have been lost.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote: > Howard Chu writes: >>> If anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has >>> been supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written). >> That doesn't mean it has any relevance today; there's plenty of stuff >> UMich did that was long since deprecated. > > True, but this was not deprecated that I know of. It is now. ;) The outcome of the original discussion, which Kurt again reminded me of today, was that ldapmodify should quit its guessing games and just accept valid LDIF input. The description of the exceptions in the manpage seemed imply they were there to accommodate slurpd users, who needed a mechanism for applying failed updates to a target server. Now that all slurpd/replog support has been dropped, there really is no more justification for these exceptions. > Snipping a bit from the -devel thread: > Howard Chu wrote: >> (Did I mention that I've always thought the mod-spec definition was >> garbage? The format I use for the logschema has none of these problems >> or inefficiences...) > > As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. > reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same > attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". I suppose reqMod should be made ordered. My point about logschema is that reqMod's syntax doesn't require separators/terminators or as many redundant attribute references. attr:- foo attr:+ bar is a far more efficient representation than delete: attr attr: foo - add: attr attr: bar - The logschema format is also easily grep-able without resorting to grep windowing and other such hassles. > Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others > do. This is really getting off topic, unless you're suggesting that we spec this for a new version of LDIF. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5316) authzTo unevaluated in 2.4.7
by m.erde＠gmx.net 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

First, I actually meant of course "authzid" in ITS After some tests, I found out that the filter expression in authzTo- Attribute of the authentication entity caused the Problems: While authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(uid=*) does not work (with uid as rdn), authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(objectClass=*) does. -Mat

1 0

(ITS#5318) response msgid <= 0 mishandled in libldap
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard libraries/libldap/result.c:try_read1msg() accesses 'lr' uninitialized if 'id' (message ID) from line 577's 'ber_get_int( ber, &id )' is <= 0. I'm not sure if the client should terminate the connection when it receives message id < 0, or if it should just toss the response like it does with unknown message IDs. With message ID 0, the code reaches this statement with 'lr' uninitialized: Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_TRACE, "read1msg: ld %p msgid %ld message type %s\n", (void *)ld, (long)lr->lr_msgid, ldap_int_msgtype2str( tag ) ); As far as I can tell, normally lr->lr_msgid == id. I haven't tracked what those values are with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS at the 'nextresp2:' label. A 700-line function with 5 labels, yuck. Anyway, I wonder why taht statement and the statement below: if ( id == 0 ) { doesn't use the same value, either id or lr->lr_msgid for both.

1 0

(ITS#5317) bad result for ldapsearch -f
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD, RE24 OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard ldapsearch rev 1.241 "allow continuous mode" introduced one bug and one probably-byg: * ldapsearch -f/dev/null returns an uninitialized value 'rc'. Fixing. * last instead of "worst" search return value is returned with continuous mode. I.e error followed by success returns success. I assume it should return failure like ldapmodify (see the code which saves rc in 'ret')?

1 0

(ITS#5316) authzTo unevaluated in 2.4.7
by m.erde＠gmx.net 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Matthias Erde Version: 2.4.7 OS: FreeBSD 6 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (85.176.162.227) Hello, after upgrading to 2.4.7 (from 2.4.6) I cannot longer authzTo neither authcid in sasl binds nor proxyauth (e.g. as used by Howard's ldapdb contributed to cyrsu-sasl) were working. -Mat

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Thinking a bit more... I wrote: > But I agree those attribute names make things icky. Attributes named "add"/"delete"/"replace" are not the only problem cases. A program which generates LDIF must also take care with attributes named "control" and "changetype". And with OpenLDAP, "increment". Which may be a worse problem since it's not mentioned in the LDIF spec. Still, the new ldapmodify seems to me to add very little value to the ldapadd program. It is ldapadd which accepts LDIF format. ldapmodify does not. Yet the only difference now seems to be that one can omit the "changetype:" line, one must still use the more verbose "add/..." and "_" lines. Another possible approach: Strict LDIF format, a record's attributes shall use "add/replace/...: attribute" if and only if the record has a "changetype:" line. Without them, ldapadd does changetype:add + add:attrs, ldapmodify does changetype:modify + replace:attrs. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Howard Chu writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one >> dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify >> record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and >> one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"): > > No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named > "add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There > are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs. Well, you'd have to use "add/delete/replace:". ldapmodify only noticed those keywords after "-", "dn:" and "changetype:" lines.to omit it. to omit it. But I agree those attribute names make things icky. And they still do, because "changetype:" is optional. This LDIF: dn: dc=example,dc=com add: foo foo: bar affects attr "foo" with ldapmodify, but "add" and "foo" with ldapadd. The current change seems to me to require either too little or too much RFC 2849 conformance in ldapmodify. (Require the final "-" and it gets stricter.) >> OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute >> description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: >> attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too. > > Likewise, this is unsafe. Why so? Treat a ": value" line followed by a "whatever:" line as if there was a "-" line between. "delete/replace: attr" not followed by attribute value lines might need a "-" after it though. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one > dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify > record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and > one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"): No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named "add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs. > OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute > description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: > attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too. Likewise, this is unsafe. > Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others > do. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

I wrote: > As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. > reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same > attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". Sorry, followed by "add: foo" makes more sense. E.g. delete sn: chu add sn: Chu -- Hallvard

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs January 2008