openldap-bugs May 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
122 discussions

[Issue 10030] New: Add support for OpenSSL 3.0 to 2.5 stable release
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10030 Issue ID: 10030 Summary: Add support for OpenSSL 3.0 to 2.5 stable release Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- As OpenSSL 1.1.1 is being sunset September 2023 we will need to add OpenSSL 3.0 support to the 2.5 series. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10041] New: unnecessary dynlist evaluation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10041 Issue ID: 10041 Summary: unnecessary dynlist evaluation Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 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: --- Created attachment 963 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=963&action=edit openldap config + data for showing the dynlist usecase Evaluation of member of dynamic groups by dynlist can be slow. However, in some context, the evaluation is not necessary, especially when searching object that are not dynamic groups. You can find attached a configuration and data file showing the use case: - 10000 users - 100 static groups - 5000 dynamic groups, with a filter (&(uid=user*)(objectClass=person), grabbing all users Example of "normal" slow search ~ 115s: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com)' Example of abnormal slow search ~ 115s: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(&(objectClass=groupOfNames)(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com))' Here, the filter about the objectClass could be evaluated first to avoid unnecessary search in dynamic groups. Example of rapid search with DSA IT ~ 1ms: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(&(objectClass=groupOfNames)(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com))' -M -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10000] New: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-watcher.c
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10000 Issue ID: 10000 Summary: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-watcher.c Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 1061499390(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- Version: Github:master Potential memory leak in slapd-watcher.c line 517.Calling ldap_search_ext_s() without calling ldap_msgfree() to free the memory will cause a memory leak. Doc says "Note that res parameter of ldap_search_ext_s() and ldap_search_s() should be freed with ldap_msgfree() regardless of return value of these functions." in https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap_search_ext_s&apropos=0… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10023] New: Asynchronous connects are broken
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10023 Issue ID: 10023 Summary: Asynchronous connects are broken Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ipuleston(a)sonicwall.com Target Milestone: --- We have a port of OpenLDAP client running in an embedded system, which is using asynchronous connects to the LDAP server. We have been using OpenLDAP 2.4.40 for a long time, and I just upgraded it to use 2.5.14 (as the current LTS release). After doing this, async connects to the LDAP server no longer work. You can see this in the following debug output: A successful async connect with 2.4.40: ldap_send_initial_request ldap_new_connection 1 1 0 ldap_int_open_connection ldap_connect_to_host: TCP Ian-DC1.sd80.com:389 ldap_pvt_gethostbyname_a: host=Ian-DC1.sd80.com, r=0 ldap_new_socket: 251 ldap_prepare_socket: 251 ldap_connect_to_host: Trying 192.168.168.3:389 ldap_pvt_connect: fd: 251 tm: 10 async: -1 ldap_ndelay_on: 251 attempting to connect: connect errno: 115 ldap_int_poll: fd: -1 tm: 0 A failed async connect with 2.5.14: ldap_send_initial_request ldap_new_connection 1 1 0 ldap_int_open_connection ldap_connect_to_host: TCP Ian-DC1.sd80.com:389 ldap_pvt_gethostbyname_a: host=Ian-DC1.sd80.com, r=0 ldap_new_socket: 247 ldap_prepare_socket: 247 ldap_connect_to_host: Trying 10.21.61.3:389 ldap_pvt_connect: fd: 247 tm: 10 async: -1 ldap_ndelay_on: 247 attempting to connect: connect errno: 115 ldap_open_defconn: successful ldap_send_server_request Sending Bind Request, len=0x6ca10c1f ldap_write: want=63 error=Resource temporarily unavailable Note that in both cases the connect attempt returns errno 115, EINPROGRESS, meaning that it has not completed. But after that: ● 2.4.40 calls ldap_int_poll (via ldap_send_initial_request -> ldap_int_check_async_open) to begin the wait for async completion. ● 2.5.14 instead reports a successful connect, and tries to send the bind which fails since thre socket is not yet connected. I tracked the problem down to a change made for ITS #8022 "an async connect may still succeed immediately" in this commit: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/ae6347bac12bbf843678a83… That change in ldap_new_connection makes it set lconn_status for an async connect to LDAP_CONNST_CONNECTED rather than LDAP_CONNST_CONNECTING if ldap_int_open_connection returns 0. The problem is that ldap_int_open_connection returns 0 after getting the EINPROGRESS. ldap_connect_to_host returns -2 for the latter, but ldap_int_open_connection doesn't check for that, returning 0 for any return code other than -1. I think that the bug is actually in ldap_int_open_connection rather than in the above commit. It should probably return -2 when ldap_connect_to_host returns that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 18

[Issue 10011] New: Incompatibilities with stricter C99 compilers
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10011 Issue ID: 10011 Summary: Incompatibilities with stricter C99 compilers Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sam(a)gentoo.org Target Milestone: --- Newer C compilers (>= Clang 16 and likely >= GCC 14) reject some constructs removed in C99 like implicit function declarations and implicit ints. Some compilers are also starting to reject obsolete K&R prototypes which were removed in C23. I've filed an MR at https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/605 to address the issues in configure as well as a small number of issues in the codebase itself. For more information, see LWN.net [0] or LLVM's Discourse [1], the Gentoo wiki [2], or the (new) c-std-porting mailing list [3]. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ [1] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/configure-script-breakage-with-the-new-werror-… [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Modern_C_porting [3] hosted at lists.linux.dev. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10054] New: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10054 Issue ID: 10054 Summary: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: louis(a)meilisearch.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, According to the documentation[0], a database that is not using `MDB_DUPSORT` can store values up to `0xffffffff` bytes (around 4GB). In practice, under Linux, the actual limit is `0x7ffff000` though (2^31 - 4096, so around 2GB). This is due to the write loop in `mdb_page_flush`. The `wsize` value determining how many bytes will be written can be as big as `4096*dp->mp_pages`[1], and the number of overflow pages grows with the size of the value put inside the DB. The `wsize` is not split in smaller chunks in the case where there are many overflow pages to write, and as a result the call to `pwrite`[2] does not perform a full write, but only a "short" write of 2147479552 bytes (the maximum allowed on a call to `pwrite` on Linux[3]). This would be OK if the short write condition was handled by looping and performing another `pwrite` with the rest of the data, but instead `EIO` is returned[4]. There seems to be a related, but different issue on macOS when trying to `pwrite` more the 2^31 bytes, that was already reported[5]. This issue was reported to me by a Meilisearch user because it causes their database indexing to fail[6]. I had to investigate a bit because their setup was peculiar (high number of documents in their database) and the `EIO` error code is not very descriptive of the underlying issue. I join a C reproducer of the issue that attempts to add a 2147479553 bytes value to the DB and fails with `EIO` (decreasing `nb_items` to a smaller value such as `2107479552` does succeed)[7]. Thank you for making LMDB! Louis Dureuil. [0]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/lmdb.h#LL284… [1]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#LL3770… [2]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3820 [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70368651/why-cant-linux-write-more-than… [4]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3840 [5]: https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9736 [6]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3654 [7]: https://github.com/dureuill/lmdb_3654/tree/main -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10062] New: How to store a data item of length greater than 511 in a dupsort db
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10062 Issue ID: 10062 Summary: How to store a data item of length greater than 511 in a dupsort db Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.30 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mega.alpha100(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Is there a workaround to storing a data item with a length greater than the value of `fn mdb_env_get_maxkeysize()` or 511 in a dupsort db? Also, I tried to change the value of the `MDB_MAXKEYSIZE` macro but that led to an illegal instruction -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10050] New: Use of stack allocated string in mdb_strerror
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10050 Issue ID: 10050 Summary: Use of stack allocated string in mdb_strerror Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: es(a)m-labs.hk Target Milestone: --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/mdb.master/libraries/libl… This piece of code exists from 2014, and these lines are not working outside of MSVC. Moreover, they lead to segfaults in MINGW compiled environments. Please see the patch we use for potential fix: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/31012dd33a32390d1e5f9b93388799… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10056] New: test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls failures on static builds
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10056 Issue ID: 10056 Summary: test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls failures on static builds Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kaction(a)disroot.org Target Milestone: --- Hello. I am getting following test error when trying to build `openldap` statically: ``` [nix-shell:/tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests]$ ./run test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls Cleaning up test run directory leftover from previous run. Running ./scripts/test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls for mdb... running defines.sh Initializing server configurations... Starting server 1 on TCP/IP port 9011... Using ldapsearch to check that server 1 is running... Waiting 5 seconds for slapd to start... Using ldapadd for context on server 1... Starting server 2 on TCP/IP port 9012... Using ldapsearch to check that server 2 is running... Waiting 5 seconds for slapd to start... Using ldapadd to populate server 1... Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... Using ldapadd to populate server 2... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... Breaking replication between server 1 and 2... Using ldapmodify to force conflicts between server 1 and 2... Restoring replication between server 1 and 2... Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... test failed - server 1 and server 2 databases differ (561) ``` I added line number (561) into error message to pinpoint it more precisely. And here is difference between databases: ``` --- /tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests/testrun/server1.flt 2023-05-23 22:53:51.000965129 -0400 +++ /tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests/testrun/server2.flt 2023-05-23 22:53:51.005965136 -0400 @@ -289,13 +289,10 @@ userPassword:: amFq dn: cn=James A Jones 2,ou=Alumni Association,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com -carLicense: 123-XYZ cn: James A Jones 2 cn: James Jones cn: Jim Jones -description: Amazing description: Bizarre -description: Mindboggling description: Stupendous employeeNumber: 64 employeeType: deadwood @@ -307,7 +304,7 @@ pager: +1 313 555 3923 postalAddress: Alumni Association $ 111 Maple St $ Anytown, MI 48109 seeAlso: cn=All Staff,ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com -sn: Surname +sn: Jones telephoneNumber: +1 313 555 0895 title: Mad Cow Researcher, UM Alumni Association uid: jaj ``` Suggestions on what more information I can provide are welcome. You can also try to build `pkgsStatic.openldap` in this nixpkgs [commit](f9e32f61282275eb5fa9064e08bbd0a92d1187de) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 10061] New: Query on setting TLSVerifyClient option set to demand
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10061 Issue ID: 10061 Summary: Query on setting TLSVerifyClient option set to demand Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ramajay52(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Dear Experts, In my case, I had set TLSVerifyClient to demand. I couldn't be able to establish a connection While providing TLSCACertificateFile alone. While setting the TLSVerifyClient option demand is it mandatory to provide the following option? 1. TLSCACertificateFile 2. TLSCertificateKeyFile 3. TLSCertificateFile Regards, Ram -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2023