https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303
Issue ID: 9303
Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an
alternative to OpenSSL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9284
Issue ID: 9284
Summary: Need man page for vc contrib overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The verified credentials overlay in contrib is missing a man page describing
its purpose
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9245
Bug ID: 9245
Summary: devel/programming needs rewrite
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The information on the devel/programming web page is at least a decade out of
date and needs a complete overhaul.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9393
Issue ID: 9393
Summary: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: best(a)univention.de
Target Milestone: ---
In many situations I need to validate if a user submitted LDAP filter has valid
syntax.
It seems there is no official function to check this.
Could you provide one?
libraries/libldap/filter.c: ldap_pvt_put_filter() can be used as a basis.
--
My current workaround is using a unconnected ldap connection and do a search
with that filter. This yields a FILTER_ERROR (invalid filter) or a SERVER_DOWN
error (invalid filter).
See also:
https://github.com/python-ldap/python-ldap/pull/272
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9356
Issue ID: 9356
Summary: Add list of peerSIDs to consumer cookie to reduce
cross traffic
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: ---
If we add a list of peersids to the cookie, each consumer can tell the
providers who else the consumers talk to and then the provider can omit sending
updates to that consumer, originating from those peers
There's some special handling needed if a connection dies
If a consumer loses one of its peer connections, and after N retries is still
not connected, it should send a new cookie to its remaining peers saying
"here's my new peer list" with the missing one removed. Likewise, if a retry
eventually connects again, it can send a new cookie again
Make that peer list reset configurable in the syncrepl config stanza. This can
help account for end admin knowledge that some links may be more or less stable
than other ones.
The idea here is that if one of your other peers can still see the missing
peer, they can start routing updates to you again
It should abandon all existing persist sessions and send a new sync search with
the new cookie to all remaining peers
For consumer side, also means adding the sid for a given provider into the
syncrepl stanza to save on having to try and discover the peer sid.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.