openldap-bugs October 2022

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
128 discussions

[Issue 9920] New: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9920 Issue ID: 9920 Summary: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC) Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Mac OS Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: info(a)parlepeuple.fr Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 915 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=915&action=edit proposed patch Hello, on master3, using the encryption at rest feature, I am testing as follow: - on a new named database, i set the encryption function with mdb_env_set_encrypt(env, encfunc, &enckey, 32) - note that I chose to have a size parameter (The size of authentication data in bytes, if any. Set this to zero for unauthenticated encryption mechanisms.) of 32 bytes. - I add 2 entries on the DB, trying to saturate the first page. I chose to add a key of 33 Bytes and a value of 1977 Bytes, so the size of each node is 2010 Bytes (obviously the 2 keys are different). - This passes and the DB has just one leaf_pages, no overflow_pages, no branch_pages, an a depth of 1. - If I add one byte to the values I insert (starting again from a blank DB), then , instead of seeing 2 overflow_pages, I get an error : MDB_PAGE_FULL. - this clearly should not have happened. - Here is some tracing : add to leaf page 2 index 0, data size 48 key size 7 [74657374646200] add to leaf page 3 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to branch page 5 index 0, data size 0 key size 0 [null] add to branch page 5 index 1, data size 0 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 1, data size 1978 key size 33 [020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202] not enough room in page 4, got 1 ptrs upper-lower = 2020 - 2 = 2016 node size = 2020 Looking at the code, I understand that there is a problem at line 9005 : } else if (node_size + data->mv_size > mc->mc_txn->mt_env->me_nodemax) { where me_nodemax is incorrect, as it is not taking into account that some bytes will be needed for the MAC authentication code, which size is in env->me_esumsize. me_nodemax is calculated at line 5349: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ ) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); So I substract me_esumsize with a "- env->me_esumsize" here: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ - env->me_esumsize) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); I also substract it from me_maxfree_1pg in the line above, and in pmax in line 10435. I do not know if my patch is correct, but it solves the issue. Maybe there are other places in the code where the me_esumsize should be substracted from the available size. By example, when calculating the number of overflow pages in OVPAGES, it does not take into account me_esumsize, but I think it is ok, because there is only one MAC for the entire set of OV pages, and there is room for it in the first OV page. See the attached proposed patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 40

[Issue 9596] New: Python test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9596 Issue ID: 9596 Summary: Python test suite Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- The bash test suite is extremely limited, hard to write for and slow. We can't lose it as it is also portable, but something should be introduced for developers/CI on more modern systems and increase coverage. A Python 3 seed for one is in development in MR!347. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9356] New: Add list of peerSIDs to consumer cookie to reduce cross traffic
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 10

[Bug 9219] New: Streamline tool API for 2.5
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 7

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Oct '24

08 Oct '24

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.

1 12

[Issue 9813] New: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9813 Issue ID: 9813 Summary: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: thierry.pubellier(a)paris.fr Target Milestone: --- Hi, We are planning to use OpenLDAP as a proxy for some users in our Active Directory servers, using remoteauth overlay. We want this OpenLDAP instance to also implement an account lockout policy, preventing the lockout on our internal Active Directory servers. But there seems to be an incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays : remoteauth won't remote authenticate a user if local userPassword attribute exists, while ppolicy overlay needs this attribute. Could there be a configuration parameter in ppolicy to allow lockout checks/modifications (which seemed to be the default behavior of OpenLDAP before ITS#7089) ? I can provide a patch if allowed. Thanks by advance, Best regards, Thierry -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9667] New: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

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.

1 3

[Bug 9225] New: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Sep '24

10 Sep '24

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.

1 9

[Issue 9921] New: Tautology in clients/tools/common.c:print_vlv()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 May '24

08 May '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9921 Issue ID: 9921 Summary: Tautology in clients/tools/common.c:print_vlv() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/clients/tools/comm… contains: tool_write_ldif( ldif ? LDIF_PUT_COMMENT : LDIF_PUT_VALUE, ldif ? "vlvResult" : "vlvResult", buf, rc ); The second parameter is always vlvResult, irrespective of the value of ldif. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9378] New: Crash in mdb_put() / mdb_page_dirty()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 26 Mar '24

26 Mar '24

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.

1 30

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
13
Older →

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs October 2022