https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9513
Issue ID: 9513
Summary: Enhanced debug output
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
While debugging ITS#9479 I needed more information on which threads were doing
what actions. Also, when looking for delays/hangs/race conditions, the 1-second
granularity of the debug msg timestamp was inadequate. And also, some of the
debug output for the Search operation was being done in separate Debug calls
for a single line of output. This gets jumbled up pretty badly if other threads
are printing output as well.
New patch set will extend the debug timestamp to have fractional seconds too;
it will use clock_gettime for nanosecond resolution if available, otherwise use
gettimeofday for microsecond resolution. Also tweak the Search debug output to
only use one Debug invocation per line of output.
This is MR!279.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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=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=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The information on the devel/programming web page is at least a decade out of
date and needs a complete overhaul.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=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.
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.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9341
Issue ID: 9341
Summary: Delta-sync MPR needs to be stable regardless of
ordering
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: replication
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
If two or more updates are spread across several providers before they have a
chance to learn about the others, all replicas need to arrive at the same
content regardless of the order in which they arrive.
One example that is broken at the moment:
- (csn a) server 1 accepts a modify
- (csn b) server 2 accepts a delete on the same DN
- (csn c) server 2 accepts an add on that DN again
If a replica receives the actions in the order bca vs. abc, the content of the
entry will be different even though the final CSN set is the same -> they will
never converge. The ordering 'bac' also needs to result in eventual
convergence, even if it means a refresh or replication from either provider
stalling temporarily?
Merge request with this test case (so far):
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/145
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9506
Issue ID: 9506
Summary: dynlist: member expansion when member attribute not
requested
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: ---
When configured to do dynamic "member" expansion, i.e.:
overlay dynlist
dynlist-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL member
Any query against an object that would trigger this expansion will incur a
penalty while dynlist does the expansion work even if there was no request for
the member attribute.
Currently that can be worked around by specifying the manageDSAit control when
doing a search on the object, but this may not be feasible for some client
applications and additionally other directory servers do not do this expansion
for their dynamic group implementations unless the underlying configured
attribute is explicitly requested.
We've already implemented this in dynlist for the memberOfAD case, we should do
it here as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.