https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9393
Issue ID: 9393
Summary: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: best(a)univention.de
Target Milestone: ---
In many situations I need to validate if a user submitted LDAP filter has valid
syntax.
It seems there is no official function to check this.
Could you provide one?
libraries/libldap/filter.c: ldap_pvt_put_filter() can be used as a basis.
--
My current workaround is using a unconnected ldap connection and do a search
with that filter. This yields a FILTER_ERROR (invalid filter) or a SERVER_DOWN
error (invalid filter).
See also:
https://github.com/python-ldap/python-ldap/pull/272
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9211
Bug ID: 9211
Summary: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following operations can be performed by anyone having 'write' access (not
even 'manage') using the Relax control:
- modifying/replacing structural objectClass
- adding/modifying OBSOLETE attributes
Some operations are correctly restricted:
- adding/modifying NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes marked as manageable
(Modification of non-conformant objects doesn't appear to be implemented at
all.)
In the absence of ACLs for controls, I'm of the opinion that all use of the
Relax control should require manage access. The Relax draft clearly and
repeatedly discusses its use cases in terms of directory _administrators_
temporarily relaxing constraints in order to accomplish a specific task.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9786
Issue ID: 9786
Summary: liblber: missing export of ber_pvt_wsa_err2string
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.1
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: tobias.junghans(a)veyon.io
Target Milestone: ---
When building (cross-compiling) OpenLDAP via GCC/mingw-w64, an undefined
reference to ber_pvt_wsa_err2string() is reported when libldap.dll is linked.
This can be fixed easily by adding ber_pvt_wsa_err2string() to
libraries/liblber/lber.map
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9220
Bug ID: 9220
Summary: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling
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: ---
Bind and Exop result handling needs a rewrite so it is no longer a special case
for overlays.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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=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.
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=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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9367
Issue ID: 9367
Summary: back-mdb: encryption support
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to add encryption support to the back-mdb backend, depends on issue#9364
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.