December 2021 - openldap-bugs

[Issue 9584] New: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9584 Issue ID: 9584 Summary: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Looking into this crash: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/jobs/7286 The thread in question is running a plain syncrepl refresh while another thread seems to have done the same. This thread fetched the entryUUID attribute of the 'cn=config' entry as 'a' and in the meantime, that entry has been rewritten, with 'a' presumably cleaned up and returned to the pool, so addressing a->a_nvals[0] is a NULL-dereference now. This might or might not be related to the fix in ITS#8102. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
18
0 / 0

[Issue 9620] New: back-monitor: search can access a persistent entry freed in the meantime

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9620 Issue ID: 9620 Summary: back-monitor: search can access a persistent entry freed in the meantime Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- With ITS#9600 there is now code that adds and removes "persistent" monitor entries outside a server pause. A concurrent cn=monitor search lists all children first and sends them later - monitor is happy to free some of them in the meantime. It seems to me that the monitor cache should be protected by a rw mutex instead, which would be held for reading while a search is happening. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 1 month

1
11
0 / 0

[Issue 9497] New: back-ldif: test022-ppolicy failure

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9497 Issue ID: 9497 Summary: back-ldif: test022-ppolicy failure Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hamano(a)osstech.co.jp Target Milestone: --- The test022-ppolicy with back-ldif fail for two issue. 1. too short pwdMaxAge ~~~ $ ./run -b ldif test022-ppolicy (snip) Testing password expiration Waiting seconds for password to expire... sleep: missing operand Try 'sleep --help' for more information. Password expiration test failed ~~~ The script tries test for lockout and then a test for password expiration. It will fail if the password has expired(pwdMaxAge: 30) by the time it starts the password expiration test. This is a timing issue and not directly caused by back-ldif. However, the issue is reproduced only with back-ldif in my environment. This test passed in my environment by extending pwdMaxAge by 5 seconds, but there may be a better way. 2. duplicate ldap control response ~~~ Reconfiguring policy to remove grace logins... Clearing forced reset... expr: syntax error: unexpected argument '15' Testing password expiration Waiting seconds for password to expire... sleep: missing operand Try 'sleep --help' for more information. ~~~ This is back-ldif issue. back-ldif responds duplicate ldap control response. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 2 months

1
8
0 / 0

[Issue 9748] New: Deleted values of pwdFailureTime seem to reappear

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9748 Issue ID: 9748 Summary: Deleted values of pwdFailureTime seem to reappear 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: --- Created attachment 854 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=854&action=edit accesslog for uid=dm01-R2H2-956,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com Somehow, ppolicy seems to be able to reference values of pwdFailureTime that had been deleted before the actual bind even started. In the attached accesslog, trace, deletion of everything (including "20211115154510.478330Z") is recorded from reqSession: 3, then a bind comes in and the same value is explicitly removed again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 2 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 9256] New: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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.

1 year, 3 months

1
27
0 / 0

[Issue 9731] New: startup messages still go to syslog when logfile-only is on

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9731 Issue ID: 9731 Summary: startup messages still go to syslog when logfile-only is on Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- When setting logfile-only on, slapd still logs its startup message to syslog: Oct 29 21:07:47 u18test slapd[18534]: @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.6.0 (Oct 29 2021 05:12:17) $#012#011openldap This is useful information to have consolidated into the specified logfile. Note that: 617c62a3.16f03fdb 0x7f9325ed67c0 slapd starting does make it to the logfile. However, it would be useful to have the build date and version in the specified logfile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 3 months

1
5
0 / 0

[Issue 9502] New: Implement TCP_USER_TIMEOUT in meta and asyncmeta

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9502 Issue ID: 9502 Summary: Implement TCP_USER_TIMEOUT in meta and asyncmeta Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Implement TCP_USER_TIMEOUT as an option to libldap and as a configuration option in back-meta and back-asyncmeta -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 3 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 9189] New: Add GSSAPI channel-bindings support

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9189 Bug ID: 9189 Summary: Add GSSAPI channel-bindings support Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: iboukris(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Recently MS has announce they plan to enforce channel-bindings for LDAP over TLS (ADV190023). To support it on client side, we need to pass "tls-endpoint" bindings (RFC 5929) to the SASL plugin, and make use of that in GSSAPI. See also: https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/pull/601 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 year, 3 months

1
13
0 / 0

[Issue 9350] New: Expand test suite for null base

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9350 Issue ID: 9350 Summary: Expand test suite for null base Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Currently we have no tests that use the empty suffix (null base). This is an entirely valid configuration setup, and there are unique challenges and bugs that crop up with this usage. We need to ensure we're covering this use case, particularly with syncrepl and delta-syncrepl configurations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 3 months

1
4
0 / 0

[Issue 9742] New: syncprov-nopresent is harmful

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9742 Issue ID: 9742 Summary: syncprov-nopresent is harmful Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- If setting up a new delta-MPR environment such that: - server A has been slapadd-ed the seed data - accesslog is set to "logops all" There is a sequence of events where servers are started and replicate from each other before they get a chance to talk to A, they will each generate a CSN and replicate it. Once they start talking to A, it will see that it has a CSN (its own) that none of them have sent and "syncprov-nopresent" makes it just go ahead where the only sane outcome is to send SYNC_REFRESH_REQUIRED. Am I missing a usecase for this or should it just have been this way all along? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year, 4 months

1
13
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs December 2021