https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9677
Issue ID: 9677
Summary: Create "make install-strip” target
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.7
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org
Target Milestone: ---
All open source make-based projects shall follow the same naming and semantics
of targets, described at
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Standard-Targets.html .
In particular “make install-strip” shall strip the binaries during the
installation, while “make install” shall not strip them.
In openldap currently “make install” does strip, which surprised me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9612
Issue ID: 9612
Summary: Change index_hash64 default to on
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Change the default value of index_hash64. By default this means slapd won't
run on a 32-bit CPU (It will continue to work on 32-bit OSes running on 64-bit
CPUs).
If someone needs to run slapd on a 32-bit CPU they can turn this option off.
In the documentation, mark the option as deprecated for eventual removal in a
future release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9580
Issue ID: 9580
Summary: Refresh vs. accesslog in delta-MPR
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: replication
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
A server consuming a plain syncrepl session (might be a delta-MMR refresh)
still has to log the entries into accesslog, however that accesslog stops being
capable of serving as a delta-sync source:
- operation entryCSNs will be out-of-order
- the changes logged will not be the intended modifications (e.g. if we fell
back after a conflict, the conflicting entry will be replaced with the other
version, other examples available)
We need to deal with that somehow, at the very least we need to make sure the
consumer will not take them at face value. We could record this in the
accesslog root entry if we can detect when this starts and match it up with the
final cookie, syncprov would still need some tweaks to understand it.
We could mark the entries received this way and make sure delta-consumers treat
them as "poison", as if they were running a plain syncrepl session themselves
(not update contextCSN until that's finished, mark its own accesslog entries
this way, ...). Anything like that needs guarantees that it will clean itself
up once all of the real plain sessions finish otherwise we've lost delta-sync
altogether.
A different approach might or might not be needed for live delta-persist
sessions replicating from a refreshing provider, but at least that syncprov has
a way of detecting this live if it chooses to.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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=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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9547
Issue ID: 9547
Summary: OpenLDAP does not send port as SPN when authenticating
SASL GSSAPI
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.44
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: robert.wilson1717(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
When trying to authenticate to an ADLDS server using kerberos and a MIT ccache,
OpenLdap only passes the hostname to the SASL mechanism, causing a mismatch
between the SPN in the client "ldap/adlds.my.domain" and the one registered in
AD "ldap/adlds.my.domain:50000"
Is there a way fo forcing OpenLDAP to pass the port as part of the SASL
request? Or is there a part of the OpenLDAP -> Cyprus-SASL -> MIT KRB5 chain
where this can be enabled?
--
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=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.
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.