openldap-bugs May 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
115 discussions

[Issue 9303] New: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 Oct '24

03 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303 Issue ID: 9303 Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9952] New: Crash on exit with OpenSSL 3
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 Oct '24

03 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9952 Issue ID: 9952 Summary: Crash on exit with OpenSSL 3 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.2 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: artur.zaprzala(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- A program using libldap will crash on exit after using SSL connection. How to reproduce on CentOS 9: Uncomment the following lines in /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf: [provider_sect] legacy = legacy_sect [legacy_sect] activate = 1 Run the command (you must enter a valid LDAP server address): python3 -c "import ldap; ldap.initialize('ldaps://<LDAP SERVER ADDRESS>').whoami_s()" Another example (no server required): python3 -c "import ctypes; ctypes.CDLL('libldap.so.2').ldap_pvt_tls_init_def_ctx(0)" Results: Segmentation fault (core dumped) Backtrace from gdb: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0 ___pthread_rwlock_rdlock (rwlock=0x0) at pthread_rwlock_rdlock.c:27 1 0x00007ffff7c92f3d in CRYPTO_THREAD_read_lock (lock=<optimized out>) at crypto/threads_pthread.c:85 2 0x00007ffff7c8b126 in ossl_lib_ctx_get_data (ctx=0x7ffff7eff540 <default_context_int.lto_priv>, index=1, meth=0x7ffff7eb8a00 <provider_store_method.lto_priv>) at crypto/context.c:398 3 0x00007ffff7c98bea in get_provider_store (libctx=<optimized out>) at crypto/provider_core.c:334 4 ossl_provider_deregister_child_cb (handle=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:1752 5 0x00007ffff7c8bf2f in ossl_provider_deinit_child (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/provider_child.c:279 6 OSSL_LIB_CTX_free (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/context.c:283 7 OSSL_LIB_CTX_free (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/context.c:276 8 0x00007ffff7634af6 in legacy_teardown (provctx=0x5555555ee9f0) at providers/legacyprov.c:168 9 0x00007ffff7c9901b in ossl_provider_teardown (prov=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:1477 10 ossl_provider_free (prov=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:683 11 0x00007ffff7c63956 in ossl_provider_free (prov=<optimized out>) at crypto/provider_core.c:668 12 evp_cipher_free_int (cipher=0x555555916c10) at crypto/evp/evp_enc.c:1632 13 EVP_CIPHER_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at crypto/evp/evp_enc.c:1647 14 0x00007ffff7a6bc1d in ssl_evp_cipher_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:5925 15 ssl_evp_cipher_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:5915 16 SSL_CTX_free (a=0x555555ec1020) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:3455 17 SSL_CTX_free (a=0x555555ec1020) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:3392 18 0x00007fffe95edb89 in ldap_int_tls_destroy (lo=0x7fffe9616000 <ldap_int_global_options>) at /usr/src/debug/openldap-2.6.2-1.el9_0.x86_64/openldap-2.6.2/libraries/libldap/tls2.c:104 19 0x00007ffff7fd100b in _dl_fini () at dl-fini.c:138 20 0x00007ffff7873475 in __run_exit_handlers (status=0, listp=0x7ffff7a11658 <__exit_funcs>, run_list_atexit=run_list_atexit@entry=true, run_dtors=run_dtors@entry=true) at exit.c:113 21 0x00007ffff78735f0 in __GI_exit (status=<optimized out>) at exit.c:143 22 0x00007ffff785be57 in __libc_start_call_main (main=main@entry=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=argc@entry=4, argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:74 23 0x00007ffff785befc in __libc_start_main_impl (main=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe2b8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe2a8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:409 24 0x000055555556b575 in _start () The problem is that ldap_int_tls_destroy() is called after the clean up of libssl. On program exit, at first default_context_int is cleaned up (OPENSSL_cleanup() was registered with atexit()): 0 ossl_lib_ctx_default_deinit () at crypto/context.c:196 1 OPENSSL_cleanup () at crypto/init.c:424 2 OPENSSL_cleanup () at crypto/init.c:338 3 0x00007ffff7873475 in __run_exit_handlers (status=0, listp=0x7ffff7a11658 <__exit_funcs>, run_list_atexit=run_list_atexit@entry=true, run_dtors=run_dtors@entry=true) at exit.c:113 4 0x00007ffff78735f0 in __GI_exit (status=<optimized out>) at exit.c:143 5 0x00007ffff785be57 in __libc_start_call_main (main=main@entry=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=argc@entry=4, argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffe2c8) at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:74 6 0x00007ffff785befc in __libc_start_main_impl (main=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe2c8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:409 7 0x000055555556b575 in _start () Then ossl_lib_ctx_get_data() tries to use default_context_int.lock, which is NULL. ldap_int_tls_destroy() is called by ldap_int_destroy_global_options(), registered by "__attribute__ ((destructor))". It seems that shared library destructors are always called before functions registered with atexit(). A solution may be to modify libraries/libldap/init.c to use atexit() instead of "__attribute__ ((destructor))". atexit() manual page says: "Since glibc 2.2.3, atexit() can be used within a shared library to establish functions that are called when the shared library is unloaded.". Functions registered with atexit() are called in the reverse order of their registration, so libssl must by initialized before libldap. If the order is wrong, libldap should detect it somehow and exit with abort(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 27

[Issue 9886] New: At "sync" logging, nothing shows how long a write op took on consumers
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 02 Oct '24

02 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9886 Issue ID: 9886 Summary: At "sync" logging, nothing shows how long a write op took on consumers 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: --- If sync logging is enabled on a consumer, there's no etime logged which means it is not possible to see how long a write op took on that consumer. This can be useful information to see how the node is performing, particularly if it is a read only node where there will be no general MOD timing logged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 9367] New: back-mdb: encryption support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Sep '24

25 Sep '24

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.

1 6

[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 Sep '24

25 Sep '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 33

[Issue 9813] New: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9813 Issue ID: 9813 Summary: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: thierry.pubellier(a)paris.fr Target Milestone: --- Hi, We are planning to use OpenLDAP as a proxy for some users in our Active Directory servers, using remoteauth overlay. We want this OpenLDAP instance to also implement an account lockout policy, preventing the lockout on our internal Active Directory servers. But there seems to be an incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy overlays : remoteauth won't remote authenticate a user if local userPassword attribute exists, while ppolicy overlay needs this attribute. Could there be a configuration parameter in ppolicy to allow lockout checks/modifications (which seemed to be the default behavior of OpenLDAP before ITS#7089) ? I can provide a patch if allowed. Thanks by advance, Best regards, Thierry -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9343] New: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9343 Issue ID: 9343 Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed to have something other than the default policy. Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a policy applied to them. For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle creating groups of users in dynlist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Issue 9652] New: Add "tee" capability to load balancer
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

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.

1 7

[Issue 9393] New: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

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.

1 5

[Issue 9667] New: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Sep '24

17 Sep '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9667 Issue ID: 9667 Summary: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified 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: --- Need to document any upgrade information for going from 2.6 to 2.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2023