[Bug 9219] New: Streamline tool API for 2.5
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9219
Bug ID: 9219
Summary: Streamline tool API for 2.5
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: ---
The current tool API is a mess and needs fixing for 2.5. This affects things
like slapacl (The fix for bug#7920 was a kludge to deal with this, needs
revisiting).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2 years, 5 months
[Issue 9295] New: ppolicy and replication: pwdLockedTime replication fails to replicate
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9295
Issue ID: 9295
Summary: ppolicy and replication: pwdLockedTime replication
fails to replicate
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
If you have the following setup, a replica will hit an error during
replication.
a) ppolicy is configured on provider(s) and replicas. Replica has
schemachecking=on in its syncrepl configuration
b) account gets locked on the replica, so pwdAccountLockedTime is set on the
replica but not on the provider(s)
c) admin does a MOD/ADD op against a provider for the user entry to add a value
to pwdAccountLockedTime
dn: ...
changetype: modify
add: pwdAccountLockedTime
pwdAccountLockedTime: ...
d) provider accepts this modification.
e) replica rejects this modification because the resulting change means that
there would be two pwdAccountLockedTime values on the account in question
Generally I believe that in this scenario, the MOD/ADD on the provider should
be treated as a replace OP instead of an ADD op
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 6 months
[Issue 9396] New: Docs might recommend applicationProcess for ppolicy entries
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9396
Issue ID: 9396
Summary: Docs might recommend applicationProcess for ppolicy
entries
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
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 779
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=779&action=edit
Suggested doc patch
Hello,
The ppolicy section of the Admin Guide does not say why the "people" object
class is present in the example policy entry.
I suggest that the docs explain. Otherwise the reader is left wondering why
the particular choice of structural object class was made. The less informed
reader is left wondering why a second object class is required at all.
I also suggest that instead of the "people" object class,
that the applicationProcess object class be used in the example to provide the
structural object class the entry requires.
The slapo-ppolicy man page might also provide guidance.
Attached is a suggested patch, provided so that you have something to work
from. If you're not happy with the patch go ahead and discard it, I'm not
advocating
any particular wording.
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 issue.
2 years, 7 months
[Issue 9337] New: Slapd crash with lastbind overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9337
Issue ID: 9337
Summary: Slapd crash with lastbind overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: frederic.poisson(a)admin.gmessaging.net
Target Milestone: ---
Hello,
I have an issue with a 2.4.50 OpenLDAP instance configured with replication (1
master and 1 replica), and when i activate the lastbind overlay. The replica
server crash like this :
slapd[8433]: segfault at 1d0 ip 000000000049f70b sp 00007f189f7fd1a0 error 4 in
slapd[400000+1d8000]
The database is this one with overlay loaded :
dn: cn=module{0},cn=config
olcModuleLoad: {0}sssvlv.la
olcModuleLoad: {1}ppolicy.la
olcModuleLoad: {2}syncprov.la
olcModuleLoad: {3}lastbind.la
olcModuleLoad: {4}pw-sha2.la
dn: olcDatabase={3}mdb,cn=config
objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig
objectClass: olcMdbConfig
olcUpdateRef: ldap://master.server:389/
If i add this configuration it crash :
dn: olcOverlay={2}lastbind
objectClass: olcOverlayConfig
objectClass: olcLastBindConfig
olcOverlay: {2}lastbind
olcLastBindPrecision: 60
olcLastBindForwardUpdates: TRUE
Does the release 2.5.51 or 2.5.52 could solve this issue ?
Regards,
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 7 months
[Issue 9382] New: client tools ldapvc.c tracks criticality but doesn't use it
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9382
Issue ID: 9382
Summary: client tools ldapvc.c tracks criticality but doesn't
use it
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
In clients/toolsldapv.c, we have:
switch ( i ) {
char *control, *cvalue;
int crit;
...
case 'E': /* vc extension */
crit = 0;
if( optarg[0] == '!' ) {
crit = 1;
and then we never use "crit" again. It would appear the intention was to
determine whether or not this control is marked critical and then do something
based on that, but there is in fact nothing ever done.
This leads to a warning that crit is set but unused.
If the criticality of the control doesn't matter, than this variable should be
eliminated. If it does matter, then the missing code needs to be added.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 8 months
[Issue 9288] New: slapd service stops suddenly but generates crash file
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9288
Issue ID: 9288
Summary: slapd service stops suddenly but generates crash file
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: tekkitan(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
System: t3.small AWS instance 2VCPU 2GB RAM
OS: Ubuntu 20.04 (was happening on 16.04 as well)
Package Version: 2.4.49+dfsg-2ubuntu1.2
We've been having this weird problem with slapd between Ubuntu 16.04 and Ubuntu
20.04 where slapd will suddenly stop according to syslog but will also generate
a crash file within apport. We thought it was due to some weird stuff we were
doing in the 16.04 version (2.4.42+dfsg-2ubuntu3.8), but we deployed a new LDAP
proxy in 20.04 (2.4.49+dfsg-2ubuntu1.2) which appears to have the same issue so
I am reporting it and hoping for guidance as we use this proxy for our
corporate VPN.
Below is the backtrace which was the same from both proxy systems, but this one
is from the 20.04 version as that is our current system in use:
root@useldap02:~/_usr_sbin_slapd.0.crash# apport-retrace --stdout
/var/crash/_usr_sbin_slapd.0.crash
--- stack trace ---
#0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
set = {__val = {0, 140488162916432, 140488307736576, 140487911640016,
140487911640117, 140487911640016, 140487911640016, 140487911640147,
140487911640316, 140487911640016, 140487911640316, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}}
pid = <optimized out>
tid = <optimized out>
ret = <optimized out>
#1 0x00007fc5f3043859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
save_stage = 1
act = {__sigaction_handler = {sa_handler = 0x2, sa_sigaction = 0x2},
sa_mask = {__val = {131, 4, 99, 0, 0, 140488164070405, 0, 21474836480,
140488121483504, 0, 140488164102160, 0, 6703301646461552640, 140488164070405,
140488165695488, 140488164087176}}, sa_flags = -235332728, sa_restorer = 0xbf}
sigs = {__val = {32, 0 <repeats 15 times>}}
#2 0x00007fc5f3043729 in __assert_fail_base (fmt=0x7fc5f31d9588 "%s%s%s:%u:
%s%sAssertion `%s' failed.\n%n", assertion=0x7fc5f1f91953
"!LDAP_BACK_CONN_TAINTED( lc )", file=0x7fc5f1f91b88
"../../../../../servers/slapd/back-ldap/bind.c", line=191, function=<optimized
out>) at assert.c:92
str = 0x7fc5c410a280 "@Q\021\344\305\177"
total = 4096
#3 0x00007fc5f3054f36 in __GI___assert_fail (assertion=0x7fc5f1f91953
"!LDAP_BACK_CONN_TAINTED( lc )", file=0x7fc5f1f91b88
"../../../../../servers/slapd/back-ldap/bind.c", line=191,
function=0x7fc5f1f921a0 "ldap_back_conn_delete") at assert.c:101
No locals.
#4 0x00007fc5f1f807c7 in ldap_back_conn_delete () from
/usr/lib/ldap/back_ldap-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#5 0x00007fc5f1f814a4 in ?? () from /usr/lib/ldap/back_ldap-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#6 0x00007fc5f1f815ad in ldap_back_release_conn_lock () from
/usr/lib/ldap/back_ldap-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#7 0x00007fc5f1f833bc in ldap_back_retry () from
/usr/lib/ldap/back_ldap-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#8 0x00007fc5f1f7ec0b in ldap_back_search () from
/usr/lib/ldap/back_ldap-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#9 0x000055b87105cc88 in overlay_op_walk ()
No symbol table info available.
#10 0x000055b87105cdb7 in ?? ()
No symbol table info available.
#11 0x000055b870fef80d in fe_op_search ()
No symbol table info available.
#12 0x000055b870fef034 in do_search ()
No symbol table info available.
#13 0x000055b870fec6ed in ?? ()
No symbol table info available.
#14 0x000055b870fed22c in ?? ()
No symbol table info available.
#15 0x00007fc5f32e7a03 in ?? () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libldap_r-2.4.so.2
No symbol table info available.
#16 0x00007fc5f3219609 in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at
pthread_create.c:477
ret = <optimized out>
pd = <optimized out>
unwind_buf = {cancel_jmp_buf = {{jmp_buf = {140488121493248,
-8220430158823943899, 140488129874654, 140488129874655, 140488129874784,
140488121490880, 8241811018110734629, 8241811687867814181}, mask_was_saved =
0}}, priv = {pad = {0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, data = {prev = 0x0, cleanup = 0x0,
canceltype = 0}}}
not_first_call = 0
#17 0x00007fc5f3140103 in clone () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:95
No locals.
This is usually what we see within syslog when slapd stops:
Jul 11 00:49:32 useldap02 slapd[5257]: conn=1035 op=239 SRCH
base="ou=people,dc=company,dc=com" scope=2 deref=0
filter="(&(|(objectClass=person)(objectClass=organizationalPerson)(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(?objectClass=fw1Person))(uid=exampleusername))"
Jul 11 00:49:32 useldap02 slapd[5257]: conn=1035 op=239 SRCH attr=cn uid sn
mail proxyAddresses userPrincipalName fullName displayName description
objectclass fw1hour-range-from fw1hour-range-to fw1expiration-date fw1day
fw1allowed-dst fw1allowed-src fw1auth-method userAccountControl
fw1userPwdPolicy mobile fw1BadPwdCount fw1lastLoginFailure fw1pwdLastMod
fw1auth-server fw1auth-server fw1groupTemplate fw1sr-auth-track fw1enc-methods
fw1ISAKMP-EncMethod fw1ISAKMP-AuthMethods fw1ISAKMP-HashMethods
fw1ISAKMP-Transform fw1ISAKMP-DataIntegrityMethod fw1ISAKMP-SharedSecret
fw1ISAKMP-DataEncMethod givenName surname
Jul 11 00:49:32 useldap02 slapd[5257]: conn=1035 op=240 SRCH
base="ou=groups,dc=company,dc=com" scope=2 deref=0
filter="(&(|(objectClass=person)(objectClass=organizationalPerson)(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(?objectClass=fw1Person))(uid=exampleusername))"
Jul 11 00:49:32 useldap02 slapd[5257]: conn=1035 op=240 SRCH attr=cn uid sn
mail proxyAddresses userPrincipalName fullName displayName description
objectclass fw1hour-range-from fw1hour-range-to fw1expiration-date fw1day
fw1allowed-dst fw1allowed-src fw1auth-method userAccountControl
fw1userPwdPolicy mobile fw1BadPwdCount fw1lastLoginFailure fw1pwdLastMod
fw1auth-server fw1auth-server fw1groupTemplate fw1sr-auth-track fw1enc-methods
fw1ISAKMP-EncMethod fw1ISAKMP-AuthMethods fw1ISAKMP-HashMethods
fw1ISAKMP-Transform fw1ISAKMP-DataIntegrityMethod fw1ISAKMP-SharedSecret
fw1ISAKMP-DataEncMethod givenName surname
Jul 11 00:49:34 useldap02 slapd[28099]: * Stopping OpenLDAP slapd
Jul 11 00:49:34 useldap02 slapd[28099]: ...done.
Jul 11 00:49:34 useldap02 systemd[1]: slapd.service: Succeeded.
Note that a lot of these attributes being searched for (all the fw1*
attributes) do not exist within our LDAP. Not sure if that would be the cause.
Thank you for any help that can be provided.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 8 months
[Issue 9270] New: Admin guide: Add detailed information on indexing
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9270
Issue ID: 9270
Summary: Admin guide: Add detailed information on indexing
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
It would be useful to outline what the different types of indexing options do,
and when they are useful, in the admin guide.
For example:
presence indexing is only useful if looking to find entries with a given
attribute, when generally < 50% of the entries in the DB have an instance of
that attribute.
equality indexing would not be particularly useful on an attribute that exists
in most every entry, and the attribute always has the same value
etc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 8 months
[Bug 9260] New: slapd-ldap(5) man page missing conn-pool-max option
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9260
Bug ID: 9260
Summary: slapd-ldap(5) man page missing conn-pool-max option
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The slapd-ldap(5) man page is missing any information on the conn-pool-max
configuration option.
Part of ITS#4791
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2 years, 8 months
[Bug 9241] New: olcRefintNothing refuse to accept space in the target dn
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9241
Bug ID: 9241
Summary: olcRefintNothing refuse to accept space in the target
dn
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: sebastien.chaumat(a)qspin.be
Target Milestone: ---
When configuring refint :
dn: olcOverlay={2}refint,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config
objectClass: olcOverlayConfig
objectClass: olcRefintConfig
olcOverlay: {2}refint
olcRefintAttribute: seeAlso
olcRefintNothing: cn=admin,dc=test
is accepted
but
olcRefintNothing: cn=admin space,dc=test
is rejected when I ldapadd the configuration with the message :
ldap_add: Constraint violation (19)
additional info: <olcRefintNothing> extra cruft after <string>
I tried various quoting :
cn="admin space",dc=test
cn=admin\20space
"cn=admin space"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2 years, 8 months
[Issue 9421] New: SIGSEGV in the MMR synchro
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9421
Issue ID: 9421
Summary: SIGSEGV in the MMR synchro
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: benjamin.demarteau(a)liege.be
Target Milestone: ---
We are in the process of migrating from a single outdated node to an up to date
MMR cluster. Through this process we write LSC synchronizations from the old
server to the new server so we can keep the old server around.
Our preliminary tests show that when LSC hammers the ldap using multiple
threads while another node is included in the replication, we get segmentation
faults with the following backtrace:
#0 0x00007f7f578748ef in __strncasecmp_l_avx () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x000056094a7ca298 in avl_find (root=0x56094bb28820,
data=data@entry=0x7f7e74000cd0, fcmp=fcmp@entry=0x56094a7166a0
<oc_index_name_cmp>) at avl.c:545
#2 0x000056094a716bde in oc_bvfind (ocname=0x7f7e74000cd0) at oc.c:186
#3 oc_bvfind (ocname=ocname@entry=0x7f7e74000cd0) at oc.c:178
#4 0x000056094a70ec5a in objectSubClassMatch (matchp=0x7f7e5fff8c8c,
flags=256, syntax=<optimized out>, mr=<optimized out>, value=<optimized out>,
assertedValue=0x7f7e74000cd0) at schema_prep.c:214
#5 0x000056094a6e9fb9 in ordered_value_match
(match=match@entry=0x7f7e5fff8c8c, ad=0x56094bb184e0,
mr=mr@entry=0x56094bb09810, flags=flags@entry=256, v1=v1@entry=0x7f7e5810f470,
v2=v2@entry=0x7f7e74000cd0,
text=0x7f7e5fff8c90) at value.c:693
#6 0x000056094a6ec44d in test_ava_filter (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff90c0,
e=e@entry=0x56094bb54a88, ava=0x7f7e74000cc8, type=type@entry=163) at
filterentry.c:777
#7 0x000056094a6ecfec in test_filter (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff90c0,
e=e@entry=0x56094bb54a88, f=f@entry=0x7f7e74000d08) at filterentry.c:88
#8 0x000056094a6ecc81 in test_filter_and (flist=<optimized out>,
e=0x56094bb54a88, op=0x7f7e5fff90c0) at filterentry.c:879
#9 test_filter (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff90c0, e=0x56094bb54a88, f=<optimized
out>) at filterentry.c:118
#10 0x00007f7f5382c58f in syncprov_matchops (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
opc=opc@entry=0x7f7e58001808, saveit=saveit@entry=0) at syncprov.c:1393
#11 0x00007f7f5382e37f in syncprov_op_response (op=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
rs=<optimized out>) at syncprov.c:2115
#12 0x000056094a6dcb98 in slap_response_play (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
rs=rs@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c10) at result.c:508
#13 0x000056094a6dd11c in send_ldap_response (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
rs=rs@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c10) at result.c:583
#14 0x000056094a6ddd43 in slap_send_ldap_result (op=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
rs=0x7f7e5fff9c10) at result.c:861
#15 0x000056094a7a86fd in mdb_add (op=0x7f7e5fff9c80, rs=0x7f7e5fff9c10) at
add.c:435
#16 0x000056094a73cd78 in overlay_op_walk (op=op@entry=0x7f7e5fff9c80,
rs=0x7f7e5fff9c10, which=op_add, oi=0x56094bb8a720, on=<optimized out>) at
backover.c:677
#17 0x000056094a73ceab in over_op_func (op=0x7f7e5fff9c80, rs=<optimized out>,
which=<optimized out>) at backover.c:730
#18 0x00007f7f5361ff6a in accesslog_response (op=<optimized out>, rs=<optimized
out>) at accesslog.c:1877
#19 0x000056094a6dcb98 in slap_response_play (op=op@entry=0x7f7e7410fff0,
rs=rs@entry=0x7f7e5fffa870) at result.c:508
#20 0x000056094a6dd11c in send_ldap_response (op=op@entry=0x7f7e7410fff0,
rs=rs@entry=0x7f7e5fffa870) at result.c:583
#21 0x000056094a6ddd43 in slap_send_ldap_result (op=0x7f7e7410fff0,
rs=0x7f7e5fffa870) at result.c:861
#22 0x000056094a7a86fd in mdb_add (op=0x7f7e7410fff0, rs=0x7f7e5fffa870) at
add.c:435
#23 0x000056094a73cd78 in overlay_op_walk (op=op@entry=0x7f7e7410fff0,
rs=0x7f7e5fffa870, which=op_add, oi=0x56094bb8a900, on=<optimized out>) at
backover.c:677
#24 0x000056094a73ceab in over_op_func (op=0x7f7e7410fff0, rs=<optimized out>,
which=<optimized out>) at backover.c:730
#25 0x000056094a6d32bd in fe_op_add (op=0x7f7e7410fff0, rs=0x7f7e5fffa870) at
add.c:334
#26 0x000056094a6d4139 in do_add (op=0x7f7e7410fff0, rs=0x7f7e5fffa870) at
add.c:194
#27 0x000056094a6cbfc0 in connection_operation (ctx=ctx@entry=0x7f7e5fffaab0,
arg_v=arg_v@entry=0x7f7e7410fff0) at connection.c:1175
#28 0x000056094a6ccdbe in connection_read_thread (ctx=0x7f7e5fffaab0,
argv=0x1a) at connection.c:1311
#29 0x00007f7f5903bead in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x56094bb2a1d0)
at tpool.c:696
#30 0x00007f7f57ae414a in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
#31 0x00007f7f57815f23 in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6
If we take down the second node, we cannot reproduce the segfaults anymore.
Let me know if we can provide more information (we can't provide the core dump
since it's full of passwords).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 years, 8 months