openldap-bugs September 2021

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
193 discussions

[Issue 9156] latest ppolicy draft support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9156 --- Comment #15 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: commit 4cd096defffc278f13edf9a194f4bc62095a947e Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> Date: Mon Jun 7 15:52:25 2021 +0100 ITS#9156 Do not spam the logs on account of lastbind Re25: • 667ea288 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-09-30T16:02:34+00:00 ITS#9156 Do not spam the logs on account of lastbind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9710] New: integrated lastbind debug statement at ANY level
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9710 Issue ID: 9710 Summary: integrated lastbind debug statement at ANY level Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 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: --- For some reason, a debug statement for the newly integrated lastbind code is logging at ANY level, which seems incorrect: Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_ANY, "fe_op_lastbind: " "old pwdLastSuccess value=%s %lds ago\n", a->a_nvals[0].bv_val, bindtime == (time_t)-1 ? -1 : op->o_time - bindtime ); This results in log lines with every bind like: Sep 30 01:41:42 ub18 slapd[5980]: fe_op_lastbind: old pwdLastSuccess value=20210930014121Z 21s ago I think a different loglevel should be in use here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9156] latest ppolicy draft support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9156 --- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- *** Issue 9710 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #18 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: Commits: • 10fb8c0a by Howard Chu at 2021-09-29T14:39:28+01:00 ITS#6949 fix logfile_only regression in prev commit RE26: Commits: • 74d1475a by Howard Chu at 2021-09-29T21:29:15+00:00 ITS#6949 fix logfile_only regression in prev commit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9708] New: null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String pass the dry-run validation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9708 Issue ID: 9708 Summary: null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String pass the dry-run validation Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mheyman(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- On behalf of Aaron Bliss at Paychex ---- I'm pretty confident that I've identified a bug when running slapadd with the dry-run switch. As a step of migrating a given replica set from oDSEE to OpenLDAP, we of course make use of the dry-run switch after sanitizing a given oDSEE export. However on a few migrations I've noticed that null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String (which are illegal per the RFC) pass the dry-run validation. This becomes really problematic because a subsequent slapadd in which the quick switch is passed will load the invalid data into the database. I understand that loading a given ldif using the quick switch performs fewer consistency checks on the input data however with our largest dataset's, it's not viable for us to migrate a given replica set from oDSEE to OpenLDAP without using the quick switch (it would require an outage that's far longer than we can allow for on the customer side of things). It makes total sense for sure that OpenLDAP will not allow for null values for this attribute type in keeping with the standard but unfortunately oDSEE allows for it as such we have to account for it. Would it be possible to catch the null attribute value scenario when performing a dry run and if so is there any way this could be prioritized (doing so would be of tremendous help to us)? If not then I'll have to write my own validation (not at all ideal) to check for this scenario but for sure would be better if slapadd can catch this condition. Thanks much as always. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #17 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- RE26: • c23c6563 by Howard Chu at 2021-09-27T19:20:18+00:00 ITS#6949 honor specified loglevel, not just debuglevel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|hyc(a)openldap.org |ondra(a)mistotebe.net --- Comment #16 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Assigning to Ondrej for the load balancer portion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #15 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 77adb192 by Howard Chu at 2021-09-27T16:54:24+00:00 ITS#6949 honor specified loglevel, not just debuglevel But skip calls to syslog() if logfile_only is set. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9709] New: Invalid link for Symas website
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9709 Issue ID: 9709 Summary: Invalid link for Symas website Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The Symas website link in the powered by portion is invalid. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 9705] New: synprov put add info into wrong cookie while performing test059-consumer-config
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9705 Issue ID: 9705 Summary: synprov put add info into wrong cookie while performing test059-consumer-config Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.59 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: gil77for(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- There is an issue with syncrepl and syncprov working together in parallel. The issue can be seen in provider LDAP server logs of test059-consumer-config. For linux this problem does not cause the test to malfunction, but it may cause replication to malfunction on other systems (or possibly on linux in a different situation from the test). In case of OpenVMS we have this issue. The problem is detected under the following circumstances, followed by a step-by-step description of the actions in test 059 that lead to malfunction: 1. Adding replication configuration for the dn: olcDatabase={1}ldif,cn=config dn: olcDatabase={1}ldif,cn=config changetype: modify add: olcSyncrepl olcSyncrepl: {0}rid=001 provider=ldap://localhost:9001/ binddn="cn=config" bindmethod=simple credentials=******** searchbase="cn=schema,cn=config" type=refreshAndPersist retry="3 5 300 5" timeout=3 suffixmassage="cn=schema,cn=config,cn=consumer" this registers a syncInfo structure with the parameter rid=001 inside the syncrepl engine. the corresponding syncCookie and cookieState are also created inside this structure 2. adding includes by ldapadd to the configuration, this causes {1}ldif,cn=config to be filled on the provider and register this adding in rid=001 syncInfo cookies with sid=001: include: file:///LDAP$SCHEMA:core.ldif include: file:///LDAP$SCHEMA:cosine.ldif include: file:///LDAP$SCHEMA:inetorgperson.ldif include: file:///LDAP$SCHEMA:openldap.ldif include: file:///LDAP$SCHEMA:nis.ldif 3. Adding replication configuration for the dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer: dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcmdbConfig olcDatabase: {1}mdb olcSuffix: dc=example,dc=com olcDbDirectory: [.testdir.db_2_a] olcRootDN: cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com olcRootPW: secret olcSyncRepl: rid=002 provider=ldap://localhost:9001/ binddn="cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com" bindmethod=simple credentials=secret searchbase="dc=example,dc=com" type=refreshAndPersist retry="3 5 300 5" timeout=3 olcUpdateRef: ldap://localhost:9001/ this registers new syncInfo structure with the parameter rid=002 inside the syncrepl engine. Should also be added info into cookies of this structure but this is the issue. The info about {1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer is added to the cookie of structure with rid=001 (!!!). Thus the cookie about {1}ldif is overrides by this new cookie data. It can be seen in provider server logs (was run on linux): …… 61275c7d ldif_back_add: "olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer" 61275c7d oc_check_required entry (olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer), objectClass "olcMdbConfig" …… 61275c7d slap_get_csn: conn=1007 op=3 generated new csn=20210826091853.649104Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1 61275c7d slap_queue_csn: queueing 0x7fcdf4106bc0 20210826091853.649104Z#000000#001#000000 61275c7d ldif_write_entry: wrote entry "olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer" 61275c7d ldif_back_add: err: 0 text: 61275c7d send_ldap_result: conn=1007 op=3 p=3 61275c7d send_ldap_result: err=0 matched="" text="" 61275c7d conn=1007 op=3 syncprov_matchops: recording uuid for dn=olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer on opc=0x7fcdf4001608 …… 61275c7d slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0x7fcdf4106bc0 20210826091853.649104Z#000000#001#000000 61275c7d conn=1004 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: cookie=rid=001,sid=001,csn=20210826091853.649104Z#000000#001#000000 61275c7d conn=1004 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: sending LDAP_SYNC_ADD, dn=olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config,cn=consumer …… rid=002 should be there! When running on linux, this does not cause a problem for the test, because syncprov task works later than the ldif database replication on consumer by syncrepl task. And the overlapped cookie entry does not matter anymore. In our case (OpenVMS) the order of asynchronous tasks (syncrepl and syncprov) is different and overwriting the cookie leads to loss of ldif database replication and failure of the test. The consumer does not receive scheme data. The differences in the order of tasks are caused by the features of pthreads library implementation for the VMS. But it should not matter for LDAP operation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2021