[Issue 9272] New: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
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 month
[Issue 9269] New: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
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 month
[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
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 month
[Bug 9229] New: Make liblutil usable by libldap
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9229
Bug ID: 9229
Summary: Make liblutil usable by libldap
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
liblutil is a static library (non-PIC) and so cannot be linked into shared
objects, however we have several use cases for reusing its code in libldap.
Some options:
- moving more code from liblutil to libldap
- just merge the whole thing?
- are there components that link liblutil but _not_ libldap?
- build liblutil as PIC (take a minor performance hit when linked into
programs?)
- build liblutil twice (liblutil.a and liblutil_pic.a)
- symlink liblutil sources into libldap build dir, like libldap_r does with
libldap
- both of these last options require checking whether executables can call
the PIC symbols safely (if some symbols are used by both library and program
code)
Nice-to-have for 2.5, I'd say more likely for 2.6 at this point.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 month
[Bug 9221] New: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9221
Bug ID: 9221
Summary: Move all replication consumer code into its own
overlay
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: ---
(In relation to a discussion about slapo-chain)
<hyc> anyway, the nicer ting to fix would be in 2.5, push all of the repl
consumer code into its own overlay
<hyc> in that case, updateref would be processed wherever the overlay was
configured
<hyc> so no longer tied to the frontend
<hyc> it would also make it more feasible to have multiple different consumer
configs in a single DB, each with their own provider URL (and thus their own
updateref)
<hyc> I would think we can get rid of the update ref directive entirely, just
point all writes to that consumer's provider.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 month
[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
[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
[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
[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 week