https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204
Bug ID: 9204
Summary: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
slapo-constraint doesn't limit who can use the Relax control, beyond the global
limits applied by slapd. In practice, for many modifications this means any
configured constraints are advisory only.
In my opinion this should be considered a bug, in design if not implementation.
I expect many admins would not read the man page closely enough to realize the
behaviour does technically adhere to the letter of what's written there.
Either slapd should require manage privileges for the Relax control globally,
or slapo-constraint should perform a check for manage privilege itself, like
slapo-unique does.
Quoting ando in https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705#c4:
> Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass
> constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax"
> control. The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be
> able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good
> reasons. Note that the user:
>
> - must have enough privileges to do it (manage)
>
> - must inform the DSA that intends to violate the constraint (by using
> the control)
but such privileges are currently not being required.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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=9343
Issue ID: 9343
Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL
filter
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: ---
Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that
any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed
to have something other than the default policy.
Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a
policy applied to them.
For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a
policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle
creating groups of users in dynlist
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9667
Issue ID: 9667
Summary: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to document any upgrade information for going from 2.6 to 2.7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9225
Bug ID: 9225
Summary: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit in back-mdb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9186
Bug ID: 9186
Summary: RFE: More metrics in cn=monitor
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
Currently I'm grepping metrics from syslog with mtail:
https://gitlab.com/ae-dir/ansible-ae-dir-server/-/blob/master/templates/mta…
With a new binary logging this is not possible anymore.
Thus it would be nice if cn=monitor provides more metrics.
1. Overall connection count per listener starting at 0 when started. This would
be a simple counter added to:
entries cn=Listener 0,cn=Listeners,cn=Monitor
2. Counter for the various "deferring" messages separated by the reason for
deferring.
3. Counters for all possible result codes. In my mtail program I also label it
with the result type.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9378
Issue ID: 9378
Summary: Crash in mdb_put() / mdb_page_dirty()
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.26
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: nate(a)kde.org
Target Milestone: ---
The KDE Baloo file indexer uses lmdb as its database (source code available at
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo). Our most common crash, with over 100
duplicate bug reports, is in lmdb. Here's the bug report tracking it:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389848.
The version of lmdb does not seem to matter much. We have bug reports from Arch
users with lmdb 0.9.26 as well as bug reports from people using many earlier
versions.
Here's an example backtrace, taken from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426195:
#6 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
#7 0x00007f3c0bbb9859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
#8 0x00007f3c0b23ba83 in mdb_assert_fail (env=0x55e2ad710600,
expr_txt=expr_txt@entry=0x7f3c0b23e02f "rc == 0",
func=func@entry=0x7f3c0b23e978 <__func__.7221> "mdb_page_dirty",
line=line@entry=2127, file=0x7f3c0b23e010 "mdb.c") at mdb.c:1542
#9 0x00007f3c0b2306d5 in mdb_page_dirty (mp=<optimized out>,
txn=0x55e2ad7109f0) at mdb.c:2114
#10 mdb_page_dirty (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, mp=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2114
#11 0x00007f3c0b231966 in mdb_page_alloc (num=num@entry=1,
mp=mp@entry=0x7f3c0727aee8, mc=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2308
#12 0x00007f3c0b231ba3 in mdb_page_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:2495
#13 0x00007f3c0b2337c7 in mdb_cursor_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:6523
#14 0x00007f3c0b2368f9 in mdb_cursor_put (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:6657
#15 0x00007f3c0b23976b in mdb_put (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, dbi=5,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:9022
#16 0x00007f3c0c7124c5 in Baloo::DocumentDB::put
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727b960, docId=<optimized out>,
docId@entry=27041423333263366, list=...) at ./src/engine/documentdb.cpp:79
#17 0x00007f3c0c743da7 in Baloo::WriteTransaction::replaceDocument
(this=0x55e2ad7ea340, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/writetransaction.cpp:232
#18 0x00007f3c0c736b16 in Baloo::Transaction::replaceDocument
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727bc10, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/transaction.cpp:295
#19 0x000055e2ac5d6cbc in Baloo::UnindexedFileIndexer::run
(this=0x55e2ad79ca20) at
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtCore/qrefcount.h:60
#20 0x00007f3c0c177f82 in QThreadPoolThread::run (this=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthreadpool.cpp:99
#21 0x00007f3c0c1749d2 in QThreadPrivate::start (arg=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthread_unix.cpp:361
#22 0x00007f3c0b29d609 in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at
pthread_create.c:477
#23 0x00007f3c0bcb6103 in clone () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:95
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.