https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9556
Issue ID: 9556
Summary: slapd-config should return invalidAttributeSyntax if
parsing schema description fails
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.4
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm currently testing error handling and interacting with LDAP clients (e.g. my
web2ldap).
Sending an invalid attribute type description results in an error (as expected)
returned by slapd-config:
RESULT tag=103 err=80 qtime=0.000032 etime=0.001271 text=olcAttributeTypes:
Unexpected token before SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
But result code other(80) seems not very useful. It's too unspecific to decide
on specific error handling.
It would be much more useful if slapd-config returns invalidAttributeSyntax(21)
in this case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9576
Issue ID: 9576
Summary: Add ConfigTable link into ConfigArgs
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Would make it possible to examine defaults if necessary.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9729
Issue ID: 9729
Summary: Allow setting multiprovider before adding syncrepl
stanzas
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
It should be possible to set multiprovider first, avoiding the window of the DB
being read-only while performing an online upgrade of a single provider to an
MPR set up and generally simplifying configuration.
Instead, the only requirement should be that serverID has been explicitly set
(hopefully != 0).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9773
Issue ID: 9773
Summary: slapo-allowed should also list "operational"
attributes
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
When using slapo-allowed a client may disable input fields for attributes not
listed in 'allowedAttributesEffective'. This helps the user to understand that
he/she should not even try to modify the attribute (better UX).
But slapo-allowed never shows operational attributes in
allowedAttributesEffective. In most use-cases this is understandable but there
are some nice use-cases (e.g. setting pwdPolicySubentry) where it should be
possible for the client to display an enabled input field even for operational
attributes.
See also:
* Discussion in ITS#9671
* https://code.stroeder.com/ldap/web2ldap/issues/24
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9769
Issue ID: 9769
Summary: Patch new feature batch get
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: rouzier(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 859
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=859&action=edit
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
mdb_cursor_get_batch retrieves a page worth of key/values.
This is to reduce the number of function calls when doing a scan of the
database.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8988
--- Comment #22 from noloader(a)gmail.com <noloader(a)gmail.com> ---
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
>
> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an
> >>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many
> >>> tangential problems.
> >>
> >> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary
> >> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing
> >> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong.
The kernel recently got bitten using the same pattern of unaligned
short pointers through casts. GCC produced code which corrupted
initramfs during unpacking.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363.
OpenLDAP should fix that code.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9739
Issue ID: 9739
Summary: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: simon.pichugin(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
While I was trying to build OpenLDAP 2.6 on Fedora Rawhide I've got the error
message:
/usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to
`ber_sockbuf_io_udp'
I've checked commits from https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 and
found that 'ber_sockbuf_io_udp' was not added to
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/liblber/…
I've asked on the project's mailing list and got a reply:
"That symbol only exists if OpenLDAP is built with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
defined, which is not a supported feature. Feel free to file a bug report
at https://bugs.openldap.org/"
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/…
Hence, creating the bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9493
Issue ID: 9493
Summary: slapo-accesslog handling of deletion of multi-valued
configuration attributes removes wrong value from list
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.57
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: svella(a)technologist.com
Target Milestone: ---
I observed this in the debugger while working on a small feature addition to
slapo-accesslog.
log_cf_gen(), when handling the initial configuration of oldAccessLogOldAttr
(accesslog.c:989), linked list li_oldattrs is being built by inserting each
value in order at the head of the list, resulting in the list being in reverse
order. But when handling LDAP_MOD_DELETE of same attribute (accesslog.c:989),
it is using the index of the removed value (valx) to find and removed the entry
in the linked list, but it's counting from the head of li_oldattrs and not the
tail, resulting in the wrong item being removed from the list unless counting
from the head or the tail happens find the same item.
(Line numbers refer to commit 6c469f07935e351e349bf38fc223dab704c51a76)
Handling of oldAccessLogBase appears to have the same problem, and a cursory
glance through the source of other overlays reveals a similar pattern, and I'm
guessing the same problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9282
Issue ID: 9282
Summary: Syncrepl re-creates deleted entry
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Scenario:
2 node Multi-provider replication
Add database to provider A
ensure database replicates to provider B
Stop provider A
delete entry on provider B
Start provider A
Wait for provider B to reconnect to provider A
Deleted entry re-appears
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.