openldap-bugs December 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
90 discussions

[Issue 9914] New: Add OS pagesize to the back-mdb monitor information
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

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.

1 3

[Bug 9211] New: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

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.

1 13

[Issue 9920] New: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

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.

1 40

[Issue 9596] New: Python test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

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.

1 9

[Issue 9786] New: liblber: missing export of ber_pvt_wsa_err2string
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

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.

1 7

[Issue 9982] New: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

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.

1 6

[Issue 9909] New: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

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.

1 2

[Issue 9881] New: Ability to track last authentication for database objects
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 5

[Bug 9220] New: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 8

[Issue 9640] New: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '24

15 Oct '24

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.

1 3

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs December 2023