https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9881
Issue ID: 9881
Summary: Ability to track last authentication for database
objects
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For simple binds, we have the ability to track the last success via the
lastbind functionality (pwdLastSuccess attribute). However this doesn't allow
one to see when an object that exists in a database last authenticated via
SASL.
It would be useful to add similar functionality for SASL binds.
This can be useful information that allows one to tell if an object is being
actively authenticated to (generally, users and system accounts, etc).
Obviously if something is directly mapped to an identity that doesn't exist in
the underlying DB, that cannot be tracked.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9829
Issue ID: 9829
Summary: set timeouts in remoteauth overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.11
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: david.coutadeur(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, it seems there is no way to configure timeouts in the remoteauth
overlay.
For example, if I define a remoteauth_mapping with a file containing a
list of hostnames, the first one is checked first.
After "remoteauth_retry_count" * "connect_timeout" seconds, (210s on my
system), remoteauth test the second server in the list.
In some circumstances, it could be nice to set the connect timeout lower
(or higher).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816
Issue ID: 9816
Summary: slapcat cordeumps during mdb subtree dump with -s
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.11
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: khoffmann(a)united-internet.de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 887
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=887&action=edit
gdb backtrace of slapcat run
When trying to use slapcat in combination with -b and -s in order to create a
LDIF backup of a mdb subtree, slapd crashes with a coredump (please see the
attached snippet with gdb output from a reproduced test tree). The problem was
reporducible with different mdb databases / suffixes and only appears with
option -s.
The same dump with -H 'ldap:///ou=users,o=company,c=de??sub?' instead of -s
ou=users,o=company,c=de works perfectly fine, as long as the "attrs part" is
empty in the ldap-uri. Also using slapcat with -b only (for a full database
dump) works fine as well.
I'm aware of the fact that -s option is marked as DEPRECATED - I'm not sure if
you are going to fix this bug or if you rather take the change to remove the
option completely from future major versions.
Please let me also know if it's expected behaviour that the -H option doesn't
work whenever the attribute part isn't empty and if I should contribute to a
documentation update for this edge case.
Best regards,
Kris
--
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=9739
Issue ID: 9739
Summary: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: simon.pichugin(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
While I was trying to build OpenLDAP 2.6 on Fedora Rawhide I've got the error
message:
/usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to
`ber_sockbuf_io_udp'
I've checked commits from https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 and
found that 'ber_sockbuf_io_udp' was not added to
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/liblber/…
I've asked on the project's mailing list and got a reply:
"That symbol only exists if OpenLDAP is built with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
defined, which is not a supported feature. Feel free to file a bug report
at https://bugs.openldap.org/"
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/…
Hence, creating the bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9782
Issue ID: 9782
Summary: regression test its8752 failure
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: ---
If a contextCSN update (new cookie) goes from server A through server B to
server C, server C will use that CSN to update entryCSN as well (which neither
A nor B did). This fails the initial replication check.
The issue has likely existed since deltasync was made possible, a version of
this is confirmed at least in 2.4.60 onwards to current master. In principle,
it is related to concerns raised in ITS#9580.
--
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=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=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=9431
Issue ID: 9431
Summary: back-mdb: Always have an equality index for
objectClass
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Data storage backends require an equality index on objectClass to function
correctly. As this is a hard requirement it should be automatic with back-mdb.
Why this wasn't done in the past with other backends isn't exactly clear, it
may have been due to their requirements to have additional cache layers. That
however is not necessary with back-mdb.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.