openldap-bugs August 2021

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
263 discussions

[Issue 9652] New: Add "tee" capability to load balancer
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9652 Issue ID: 9652 Summary: Add "tee" capability to load balancer Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mhardin(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- This is a request for an enhancement that would add a "tee" or "fan-out" capability to load balancer, where received operations are sent to two or more destinations simultaneously. The primary goal or the enhancement is to make it possible to keep multiple independent and likely dissimilar directory systems in lock-step with each other over hours, days, or possibly even weeks. The enhancement would not necessarily need to include a mechanism for converging the target systems should they become out of sync. This is not intended to be a replication solution, rather it is viewed more as a "copy" solution intended to be used for specific short-term tasks that need multiple directory systems to be exactly synchronized but where replication is not desirable or even possible. At least two uses come to mind: 1. Test harnesses, evaluating side-by-side operation of separate directory systems over time 2. Directory system transition validation harnesses 3. (maybe) Part of a test harness to record or replay LDAP workloads * Other uses? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9640] New: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9640 Issue ID: 9640 Summary: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified 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 using LDAP write operations with MOD_INCREMENT with pre-read-control for uidNumber/gidNumber generation. I'd like to limit write access to an Integer attribute "nextID" to MOD_INCREMENT, ideally even restricting the de-/increment value. (Uniqueness is achieved with slapo-unique anyway but still I'd like to avoid users messing with this attribute). IMHO the ideal solution would be a new privilege "i". Example for limiting write access to increment by one and grant read access for using read control: access to attrs=nextID val=1 by group=... =ri Example for decrementing by two without read: access to attrs=nextID val=-2 by group=... =i -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9577] New: slapd -V should be deprecated
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9577 Issue ID: 9577 Summary: slapd -V should be deprecated Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Sometimes a user's (present one included) ignorance gets them in trouble unnecessarily. The -V option is an example... Normally, when one wants to determine the version of a process, they use -V, or perhaps -v. With slapd, the daemon actually continues to run, which can have negative consequences. The doc clearly states that -VV is probably what the user wants, but is counter-intutive. Who RTFM's before checking the version? -V print version info (-VV exit afterwards, -VVV print info about static overlays and backends) I propose we eliminate the option to allow slapd to continue running after displaying the version. Perhaps we eliminate the -V option entirely, or just make it work the same as -VV. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9431] New: back-mdb: Always have an equality index for objectClass
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9431 Issue ID: 9431 Summary: back-mdb: Always have an equality index for objectClass Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Data storage backends require an equality index on objectClass to function correctly. As this is a hard requirement it should be automatic with back-mdb. Why this wasn't done in the past with other backends isn't exactly clear, it may have been due to their requirements to have additional cache layers. That however is not necessary with back-mdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9398] New: Stale accesslog cookie due to unclean shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9398 Issue ID: 9398 Summary: Stale accesslog cookie due to unclean shutdown Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.56 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- If slapd terminates uncleanly, a checkpoint will be lost on the accesslog db. Depending on the syncprov overlay checkpoint settings (usually no checkpointing is enabled on the accesslog db) this can cause the system to refuse engage in replication at startup. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9303] New: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

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.

1 9

[Issue 9284] New: Need man page for vc contrib overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

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.

1 7

[Issue 9272] New: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

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 16

[Bug 9256] New: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully documented
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

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 28

[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

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 14

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs August 2021