openldap-bugs May 2020

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
131 discussions

[Bug 9220] New: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9220 Bug ID: 9220 Summary: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling 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: --- Bind and Exop result handling needs a rewrite so it is no longer a special case for overlays. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 8

[Issue 9272] New: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9272 Issue ID: 9272 Summary: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.47 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Here is a trivial test case. Look at the following bunch of glued dit's/databases, declared in this order: | suffix ou=a,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=2,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=b,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=T # master database, has two entries, top-level | ` ou=1 # ... and this child entry let's query the united database: | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=b,ou=1,ou=T Nice! But wait, what if ... | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub -E\!pr=2/noprompt '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | | # pagedresults: cookie=//////////8= ... BANG! ... | Server is unwilling to perform (53) The problem is the glue_op_search(), which has issues * different parts of code make different assumptions about data structures * different parts of code track state inconsistently * code that looks like a highly probably dead code I mean that likely possible to build another bug-triggering test cases, and glue_op_search() needs not just a fix of the bug above, but intense cleaning and structuring. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Bug 9219] New: Streamline tool API for 2.5
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 7

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Oct '24

08 Oct '24

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 12

[Bug 9211] New: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Oct '24

08 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9211 Bug ID: 9211 Summary: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The following operations can be performed by anyone having 'write' access (not even 'manage') using the Relax control: - modifying/replacing structural objectClass - adding/modifying OBSOLETE attributes Some operations are correctly restricted: - adding/modifying NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes marked as manageable (Modification of non-conformant objects doesn't appear to be implemented at all.) In the absence of ACLs for controls, I'm of the opinion that all use of the Relax control should require manage access. The Relax draft clearly and repeatedly discusses its use cases in terms of directory _administrators_ temporarily relaxing constraints in order to accomplish a specific task. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 12

[Bug 9225] New: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9225 Bug ID: 9225 Summary: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.50 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit in back-mdb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 9

[Bug 9186] New: RFE: More metrics in cn=monitor
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9186 Bug ID: 9186 Summary: RFE: More metrics in cn=monitor Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com Target Milestone: --- Currently I'm grepping metrics from syslog with mtail: https://gitlab.com/ae-dir/ansible-ae-dir-server/-/blob/master/templates/mta… With a new binary logging this is not possible anymore. Thus it would be nice if cn=monitor provides more metrics. 1. Overall connection count per listener starting at 0 when started. This would be a simple counter added to: entries cn=Listener 0,cn=Listeners,cn=Monitor 2. Counter for the various "deferring" messages separated by the reason for deferring. 3. Counters for all possible result codes. In my mtail program I also label it with the result type. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 9

[Bug 9193] New: HTML in mailing list description
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 19 Mar '24

19 Mar '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9193 Bug ID: 9193 Summary: HTML in mailing list description Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- e.g. https://lists.openldap.org/postorius/lists/openldap-devel.openldap.org/ contains code for links and formatting, but all inside of a <pre> block. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 5

[Issue 9269] New: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9269 Issue ID: 9269 Summary: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- "hidden" configuration option is ignored by slapd (not honored by "glue" overlay?) if the database it tries to hide is also a "subordinate" database. Checked for openldap 2.4.47 and current git master (f3952d9). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9244 Bug ID: 9244 Summary: API calls blocking after async connect Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 721 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=721&action=edit async connect test without TLS My understanding of LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is that the attached program should not block. If the connection does not establish fast enough, the bind call is supposed to return LDAP_X_CONNECTING. (At least that's how I understand it, based on the original behaviour (circa 2.4.23 up to 2.4.40) as well as the bind loop in back-meta. On the other hand, the man page does "Subsequent calls to library routines will poll for completion of the connect before performing further operations" which might be interpreted as meaning they would block...) In current releases it does block, as demonstrated by strace on Linux (latency added using 'tc qdisc'): [...] connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(389), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.204")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) poll([{fd=3, events=POLLOUT|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLOUT}]) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = 14 poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLIN}]) read(3, "0\f\2\1\1a\7\n", 8) = 8 read(3, "\1\0\4\0\4\0", 6) = 6 write(2, "OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 "..., 42OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 (Success) ) = 42 [...] As discussed in IRC, I believe I bisected this down to commit ae6347bac, from bug 8022. The reasoning is sound, but ldap_int_open_connection does not actually return -2, only -1 or 0. The patch is simple enough, but I'm also looking at some later commits that were probably done to work around this, and might not be needed now (bug 8957, bug 8968, bug 8980). Also need to test all setups thoroughly (ldap, ldaps, STARTTLS, not to mention back-meta/asyncmeta). I also notice that LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is not effective unless LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT is also set. It might be intentional, but the man page doesn't mention this specifically, and I don't see why it would be necessary... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 13

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2020