March 2020 - openldap-bugs

[Bug 8446] Various bug fixes for the async-meta backend

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8446 --- Comment #10 from nivanova(a)symas.com <nivanova(a)symas.com> --- This ITS is no longer relevant, since a lot of changes were made to the design and implementation, and all changes were already submitted as ITS#8734. asyncmeta in master is currently up-to-date. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8485] [PATCH] Adding support for encrypted server private keys

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8485 --- Comment #9 from Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> --- I concur that lacking support for encrypted private keys is a real deficiency! In general OpenLDAP should aim to reach more flexibility for the TLS configuration, e.g. like Apache httpd. Encrypted private keys for both server and client side is one aspect of that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8485] [PATCH] Adding support for encrypted server private keys

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8485 --- Comment #8 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Do I understand it correctly that libldap doesn't currently support using encrypted keys at all, not even for client certificates? If that is so, there are scenarios where supporting that does improve security (e.g. interactive tools). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8528] Incorrect results on replace op for olcAccess

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8528 --- Comment #3 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Not saying it's a bad idea, but the interactions with a delete mod might be a little confusing: changetype: modify delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {2}to dn.exact="cn=2" by * none olcAccess: {1}to dn.exact="cn=1" by * none olcAccess: {0}to dn.exact="cn=0" by * none I think the above might fail if sorted. Worse still if you sent this modify request (I think we implement this?): changetype: modify delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {2} olcAccess: {1} olcAccess: {0} You would get the wrong values deleted if we do and you need to make 100% sure that you send this instead: changetype: modify delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {2} - delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {1} - delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {0} - Similar with adds. Would need to reread the draft, but I think the text also needs changing if we want to make this change. Question is whose job would it be to reorder the values? Frontend or later? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8511] Rename "mirrormode" to "multimaster", deprecate "mirrormode" parameter

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8511 --- Comment #5 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Can't see the patch anywhere, could you create a merge request for this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8479] overlay unique + mdb: loop and OOM kill, 2 URS as olcUniqueURI value

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8479 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Probably the same issue as ITS#9077 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 9077 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 9077] slapo-unique spins its wheels on a non-trivial olcUniqueURI spec

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9077 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |william.b.clay(a)acm.org --- Comment #5 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- *** Bug 8479 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8446] Various bug fixes for the async-meta backend

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8446 --- Comment #9 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:08:09PM +0000, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote: > https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8446 Hi Nadya, do you know if this is applied in master yet? Is this patch series still valid for current master? Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 8446] Various bug fixes for the async-meta backend

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8446 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|slapd |backends Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ Target Milestone|--- |2.5.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

2
1
0 / 0

[Bug 8345] inconsistencies regarding LDIF line length

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8345 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=9001 --- Comment #4 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- That sounds fine by me. BTW liblutil is currently a static-only library, which is why none of the libldap code uses it. Same issue I'm hitting with using AVL code in ITS#9001 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2020