https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10020
Issue ID: 10020
Summary: dynlist's @groupOfUniqueNames is considered only for
the first configuration line
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.13
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: msl(a)touk.pl
Target Milestone: ---
If we consider the following configuration of dynlist:
{0}toukPerson labeledURI uniqueMember+memberOf@groupOfUniqueNames
{1}groupOfURLs memberURL uniqueMember+dgMemberOf@groupOfUniqueNames
The {0} entry will correctly populate the memberOf relatively to static group
membership.
The {1} entry will produce dgMemberOf with dynamic group membership correctly
(based on memberURL query) but it will not populate static entries IF {0} entry
in configuration is present. IF I remove {0} from the dynlist configuration -
or - remove @groupOfUniqueNames part from this configuration line, then both
dynamic and static entries will be populated correctly for {1}.
So the effects are as follows on some user entry:
if both {0} and {1} are present - {1} produced only dynamic groups:
memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
if both {0} and {1} are present and @groupOfUniqueNames is removed from {0} -
{1} produced static+dynamic groups:
dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
If only {1} is present - {1} produced static+dynamic groups:
dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
For completness - if only {0} is present:
memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
I would expect this behavior to be correct for the first case - {0} and {1}.
memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9934
Issue ID: 9934
Summary: slapd-config(5) should document how to store
certificates for slapd usage
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.13
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Commit 7b41feed83b expanded the ability of cn=config to save the certificates
used for TLS by slapd directly in the config database. However the
documentation for the new parameters was never added to the slapd-config(5) man
page.
olcTLSCACertificate $ olcTLSCertificate $ olcTLSCertificateKey
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10106
Issue ID: 10106
Summary: Add organization to web list of OpenLDAP support
providers
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: sudo(a)migrateq.io
Target Milestone: ---
Hello! This request is being opened as suggested by Quanah Gibson-Mount.
Could you please add Migrateq to your OpenLDAP Support page on
https://openldap.org/support
Company: Migrateq Inc.
Website: https://migrateq.io/support/tech/openldap
Migrateq provides migrations, integrations and advanced 24/7/365 technical
support for OpenLDAP and most Linux and Open Source Software.
Thank you =)
Richard
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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=9982
Issue ID: 9982
Summary: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: invokesus+openldap(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 942
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=942&action=edit
Build log
I'm encountering the following linker error when building from the master
branch, with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS defined.
/nix/store/jbnmj9fljgnfyc1iswnrpfhlkpnnwiii-binutils-2.39/bin/ld:
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ber_sockbuf_io_udp'
Seems to have been happening since
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/4a87d7aad200aaa91cb0cb8….
Attaching the full build log.
Also, attaching in the next update, a patch to fix the error.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.