October 2020 - openldap-bugs

[Bug 9218] New: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9218 Bug ID: 9218 Summary: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 items: [13:57] <hyc> there's a nagging problem though, pcache's entry_release function needs to distinguish between its backend actually freeing the entry, or being a no-op [13:57] <hyc> so it can decide whether to return success or continue [13:58] <hyc> the patch to translucent sidesteps the question, by avoiding other overlays [13:58] <hyc> but we need to revisit this in 2.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 month

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 9217] New: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9217 Bug ID: 9217 Summary: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 requirements: [09:27] <hyc> we also need to audit all of these schema defs [09:27] <hyc> we're supposed to have official, non-experimental OIDs for released schema [09:28] <hyc> accesslog is still using 666, experimental arc [09:29] <hyc> I think this means we should polish up the logschema draft, Informational status, and publish it again as final -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 month

1
12
0 / 0

[Bug 9216] New: Port autoca to gnutls

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9216 Bug ID: 9216 Summary: Port autoca to gnutls Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For 2.5, support building and running the autoca overlay with GnuTLS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 month

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204 Bug ID: 9204 Summary: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- slapo-constraint doesn't limit who can use the Relax control, beyond the global limits applied by slapd. In practice, for many modifications this means any configured constraints are advisory only. In my opinion this should be considered a bug, in design if not implementation. I expect many admins would not read the man page closely enough to realize the behaviour does technically adhere to the letter of what's written there. Either slapd should require manage privileges for the Relax control globally, or slapo-constraint should perform a check for manage privilege itself, like slapo-unique does. Quoting ando in https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705#c4: > Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass > constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax" > control. The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be > able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good > reasons. Note that the user: > > - must have enough privileges to do it (manage) > > - must inform the DSA that intends to violate the constraint (by using > the control) but such privileges are currently not being required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 month

1
11
0 / 0

[Issue 9278] New: liblmdb: robust mutexes should not be unmapped

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9278 Issue ID: 9278 Summary: liblmdb: robust mutexes should not be unmapped Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: FreeBSD Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: delphij(a)freebsd.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 736 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=736&action=edit A possible workaround We recently noticed that lmdb would have the memory region containing the robust mutex unmapped on mdb_env_close0(): munmap((void *)env->me_txns, (env->me_maxreaders-1)*sizeof(MDB_reader)+sizeof(MDB_txninfo)); Note that if this is the last unmap for a robust mutex, the FreeBSD implementation would garbage-collect the mutex, making it no longer visible to other processes. As the result, a second instance of the attached test.c (from https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244493 with minor changes) would trigger the assertion at mdb_txn_begin() because the acquisition of the mutex would return 22 (EINVAL), because the mutex appeared to be a robust mutex, but was invalid. The attached lmdb.diff is a possible workaround for this (it would skip unmapping when setting up the robust mutex for the first time). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 month, 2 weeks

1
20
0 / 0

[Issue 9343] New: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9343 Issue ID: 9343 Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed to have something other than the default policy. Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a policy applied to them. For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle creating groups of users in dynlist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

11 months

1
13
0 / 0

[Issue 9365] New: Mem leaks with Æ-DIR providers

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9365 Issue ID: 9365 Summary: Mem leaks with Æ-DIR providers Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.53 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 772 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=772&action=edit valgrind output on openSUSE Tumbleweed x86_64 An Æ-DIR installation with self-compiled OpenLDAP 2.4.53 on Debian (now buster) has memory leak issues on the Æ-DIR providers. The read-only consumers do not have this issue. The provider config is more complex with more overlays and more ACLs. In this production deployment slapd is automatically restarted (by monit) when memory consumption reaches 80%. Thus monitoring clearly shows a frequent saw tooth pattern. I've also tested on openSUSE Tumbleweed x86_64 with a RE24 build [1] by running slapd under control of valgrind for a couple of minutes continously sending simple bind operations (additional to the monitoring and other back-ground jobs running). Find valgrind output of my first attempt attached. Does that make sense at all? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 2 months

1
12
0 / 0

[Issue 9339] New: Add syncrepl status in cn=monitor

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9339 Issue ID: 9339 Summary: Add syncrepl status in cn=monitor Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Patch coming to expose some consumer state in cn=monitor Sample entry: # Consumer 001, database 2, databases, monitor dn: cn=Consumer 001,cn=database 2,cn=databases,cn=monitor objectClass: olmSyncReplInstance structuralObjectClass: olmSyncReplInstance cn: Consumer 001 creatorsName: modifiersName: createTimestamp: 20200906160447Z modifyTimestamp: 20200906160447Z olmSRProviderURIList: ldap://localhost:9011/ olmSRIsConnected: TRUE olmSRSyncPhase: Persist olmSRLastConnect: 20200906160448Z olmSRLastContact: 20200906160453Z olmSRLastCookieRcvd: rid=001,sid=001,csn=20200906160453.039573Z#000000#001#000 000 olmSRLastCookieSent: rid=001,sid=002,csn=20200906160447.723677Z#000000#001#000 000 entryDN: cn=Consumer 001,cn=database 2,cn=databases,cn=monitor subschemaSubentry: cn=Subschema hasSubordinates: FALSE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 2 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Issue 9358] New: back-mdb may return accesslog entries out of order

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358 Issue ID: 9358 Summary: back-mdb may return accesslog entries out of order Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.53 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- back-mdb will usually return search entries in entryID order, but may do a dn traversal instead if the count of children is smaller than the count of search filter candidates. The RDNs are sorted in length order, not lexical order. For accesslog, all RDNs are of equal length but if they have trailing zeroes, the generalizedTime normalizer truncates them. Changing their lengths causes accesslog's timestamp-based RDNs to sort in the wrong order. The least intrusive fix is to override the syntax/normalizer for reqStart and reqEnd attributes to not truncate trailing zeroes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 3 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 9256] New: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9256 Bug ID: 9256 Summary: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kop(a)karlpinc.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 727 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=727&action=edit Patch massaging the SASL binding requirement docs While some ACL requirements for SASL binding are documented, some are not. E.g, that olcAuthzRegexp requires =x on objectClass when direct DN mapping is not documented. Other requirements can be reasoned out based on the existing documentation, but this can be very difficult when unfamiliar with all the moving parts and the places they are documented. E.g. knowing that (objectClass=*) is the default filter, and that there's _always_ _some_ filter, and connecting this with ACLs required to do search-based SASL mapping. The attached patch brings all the SASL binding requirements together in one place in the docs and makes everything explicit. The word "SASL" is included, for those searching for that keyword. I, Karl O. Pinc, hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 9 months

1
27
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs October 2020