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=9914
Issue ID: 9914
Summary: Add OS pagesize to the back-mdb monitor information
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The pagesize that back-mdb is using for pages should be exposed via the
cn=monitor backend, as a remote client doing a query will not have that
information available to it.
--
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=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.
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=9909
Issue ID: 9909
Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
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: ---
slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is
never released on shutdown.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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=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.