March 2022 - openldap-bugs

[Issue 9805] New: member attributes managed by autogroup are lost when user attributes are adjusted

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9805 Issue ID: 9805 Summary: member attributes managed by autogroup are lost when user attributes are adjusted Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.59 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael.bobzin(a)baloise.ch Target Milestone: --- Hello OpenLDAP Team, we use nested groups in our OpenLDAP directory. User X is a member of group A. Group A is a member of group B. User X is therefore also a member of group B. To be able to find out all groups of user X with only one LDAP query we use the dynlist overlay together with the autogroup overlay. Group B is a dynamic group whose member attributes are set with autogroup, to allow a search for members. ldapsearch .. -s sub -b "ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch" "(member=cn=userx,ou=users,dc=basler,dc=ch)" dn Result: cn=groupA,ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch cn=groupB,ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch ----- Gruppe A ---------------------------------------------------------- dn: cn=groupA,ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch cn: groupA objectClass: top objectClass: groupOfNames member:cn=userX,ou=users,dc=basler,dc=ch ----- Gruppe B ---------------------------------------------------------- dn: cn=groupB,ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch cn: groupB objectClass: top objectClass: groupOfURLs memberURL: ldap:///ou=groups,dc=basler,dc=ch?member?one?(cn=groupA) # managed by autogroup member:cn=userX,ou=users,dc=basler,dc=ch ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This works until any attribute in the userX object is changed. The member attribute for userX created dynamically by autogroup is then deleted from groupB although userX is still a member of groupA and is therefore matched with the search in the memberURL attribute of groupB matched. The expected behaviour would be that the member attribute in groupB remains unchanged. ----------- configuration -------------------------- OpenLDAP 2.4.59 from https://www.ltb-project.org/download.html --------------- slapd.conf ------------------------- ... moduleload dynlist moduleload autogroup.so ... include /usr/local/openldap/etc/openldap/local-schema/dyngroup.schema ... overlay dynlist dynlist-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL overlay autogroup autogroup-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL member -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
5
0 / 0

[Issue 9497] New: back-ldif: test022-ppolicy failure

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9497 Issue ID: 9497 Summary: back-ldif: test022-ppolicy failure Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hamano(a)osstech.co.jp Target Milestone: --- The test022-ppolicy with back-ldif fail for two issue. 1. too short pwdMaxAge ~~~ $ ./run -b ldif test022-ppolicy (snip) Testing password expiration Waiting seconds for password to expire... sleep: missing operand Try 'sleep --help' for more information. Password expiration test failed ~~~ The script tries test for lockout and then a test for password expiration. It will fail if the password has expired(pwdMaxAge: 30) by the time it starts the password expiration test. This is a timing issue and not directly caused by back-ldif. However, the issue is reproduced only with back-ldif in my environment. This test passed in my environment by extending pwdMaxAge by 5 seconds, but there may be a better way. 2. duplicate ldap control response ~~~ Reconfiguring policy to remove grace logins... Clearing forced reset... expr: syntax error: unexpected argument '15' Testing password expiration Waiting seconds for password to expire... sleep: missing operand Try 'sleep --help' for more information. ~~~ This is back-ldif issue. back-ldif responds duplicate ldap control response. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
8
0 / 0

[Issue 5840] mdb online indexing and shutdown

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5840 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 5840] mdb online indexing and shutdown

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5840 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #12 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- (In reply to Ondřej Kuzník from comment #11) > Is this resolved with ITS#8958? Yes *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 8958 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 8958] 2nd cn=config update blocks slapd while adding subordinate index

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ralf(a)openldap.org --- Comment #42 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- *** Issue 5840 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 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 5840] mdb online indexing and shutdown

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5840 --- Comment #11 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Is this resolved with ITS#8958? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 9798] New: Clearing pending ops on Bind

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9798 Issue ID: 9798 Summary: Clearing pending ops on Bind Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Some context first. The only universal way of reset an arbitrary (SASL) bind in progress, at least in my reading of RFC4511 is to send an anonymous bind op, so that's what the load balancer does when needed (the client goes away, etc.). Incidentally, this is also what the balancer chooses to do when the pending bind needs to be "abandoned" when the backend doesn't respond within a configured timeout. That's skating the edge of what RFC4511 allows, probably just past it. The issue: When slapd receives a bind and another operation X (lloadd sends the above mentioned "reset" bind) before that first bind starts processing, X gets added into conn->c_ops_pending and does c_n_pending_ops++. Bind then eventually invokes connection_abandon which forgets to zero out c_n_pending_ops and the connection remains unusable forever. On the surface that's trivial to fix and a fix is coming. On the other hand, operation X in the pending list is actually discarded too, so that kind of defeats the idea of trying to "abandon" the original bind and completely reset the connection state. Question is, do we want to retain the last bind in the pending list or does the balancer have to destroy the connection unconditionally when a bind times out? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
6
0 / 0

[Issue 8524] cn=config + ditContentRule

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8524 --- Comment #3 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- Just like with attribute and objectclass definitions, these are stored under cn=schema,cn=config as the file that defined them or directly in cn=config if defined in slapd.conf directly (as you're doing here). Maybe keep them in a file that you also include. Don't know if we should document this behaviour or change it in some way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 7441] cn=config filters ignore {number}

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7441 --- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- The inconsistency part comes from bconfig not implementing be_compare. Instead, it relies on the frontend implementation, so while search goes through test_filter->...->ordered_value_match and other backends use slap_compare_entry which triggers the same, frontend's compare gets the actual values through backend_attribute and then calls value_find_ex, which doesn't care about SLAP_AT_ORDERED. Afterwards, allowing attr={index} assertions to match attr={index}value and attr={index}value to match itself only should be possible by adapting ordered_value_match (and value_find_ex or whatever we end up calling from the frontend). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 9748] New: Deleted values of pwdFailureTime seem to reappear

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9748 Issue ID: 9748 Summary: Deleted values of pwdFailureTime seem to reappear Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 854 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=854&action=edit accesslog for uid=dm01-R2H2-956,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com Somehow, ppolicy seems to be able to reference values of pwdFailureTime that had been deleted before the actual bind even started. In the attached accesslog, trace, deletion of everything (including "20211115154510.478330Z") is recorded from reqSession: 3, then a bind comes in and the same value is explicitly removed again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 year

1
9
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2022