https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9921
Issue ID: 9921
Summary: Tautology in clients/tools/common.c:print_vlv()
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/clients/tools/comm…
contains:
tool_write_ldif( ldif ? LDIF_PUT_COMMENT : LDIF_PUT_VALUE,
ldif ? "vlvResult" : "vlvResult", buf, rc );
The second parameter is always vlvResult, irrespective of the value of ldif.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10084
Issue ID: 10084
Summary: Move away from DIGEST-MD5 as a default in the test
suite
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: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
cyrus-sasl seem on the verge or removing the DIGEST-MD5 mechanism from 2.2
onwards. As such we should update our defaults in a couple of our test scripts
for master/2.7 at least. Are SCRAM mechanisms the go-to these days?
--
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=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=10026
Issue ID: 10026
Summary: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not
managed properly)
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Take MPR plain syncrepl with 3+ providers.
When a provider's own syncrepl session transitions to persist and a it starts a
new parallel session towards another host, that session always has to start as
a refresh. If that refresh serves entries to us, our handling of si_dirty is
not consistent:
- if the existing persist session serves some of these entries to us, we can
"forget" to pass the others to a newly connected consumer
- same if the refresh is abandoned and we start refreshing from a different
provider that might be behind what we were being served (again our consumers
could suffer)
- if we restart, si_dirty is forgotten and our consumers suffer even worse
We might need to be told (at the beginning of the refresh?) what the end state
we're going for is, so we can keep si_dirty on until then. And somehow persist
that knowledge in the DB...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10071
Issue ID: 10071
Summary: Extra sids in cookie should only be ignored for replay
consideration
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: ---
A consumer's cookie might contain sids that the provider is not aware of. Those
are currently screened out. This is appropriate for initial checks whether/how
to allow the operation to go ahead but might be needed for content
determination in refresh/persist. As such the cookie should be retained rather
than edited in place.
I don't have the logs from a failed test at hand but will post the
analysis/logs if I find them again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10082
Issue ID: 10082
Summary: More dynlist eval tweaks
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: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
When the memberOf attribute is a user attribute instead of operational, it will
be expanded on any search for (all user attributes). If the search is filtering
on objectclasses that don't contain this attribute, that's wasted work. Check
for a matching objectclass in the filter before doing that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9378
Issue ID: 9378
Summary: Crash in mdb_put() / mdb_page_dirty()
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.26
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: nate(a)kde.org
Target Milestone: ---
The KDE Baloo file indexer uses lmdb as its database (source code available at
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo). Our most common crash, with over 100
duplicate bug reports, is in lmdb. Here's the bug report tracking it:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389848.
The version of lmdb does not seem to matter much. We have bug reports from Arch
users with lmdb 0.9.26 as well as bug reports from people using many earlier
versions.
Here's an example backtrace, taken from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426195:
#6 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
#7 0x00007f3c0bbb9859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
#8 0x00007f3c0b23ba83 in mdb_assert_fail (env=0x55e2ad710600,
expr_txt=expr_txt@entry=0x7f3c0b23e02f "rc == 0",
func=func@entry=0x7f3c0b23e978 <__func__.7221> "mdb_page_dirty",
line=line@entry=2127, file=0x7f3c0b23e010 "mdb.c") at mdb.c:1542
#9 0x00007f3c0b2306d5 in mdb_page_dirty (mp=<optimized out>,
txn=0x55e2ad7109f0) at mdb.c:2114
#10 mdb_page_dirty (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, mp=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2114
#11 0x00007f3c0b231966 in mdb_page_alloc (num=num@entry=1,
mp=mp@entry=0x7f3c0727aee8, mc=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2308
#12 0x00007f3c0b231ba3 in mdb_page_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:2495
#13 0x00007f3c0b2337c7 in mdb_cursor_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:6523
#14 0x00007f3c0b2368f9 in mdb_cursor_put (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:6657
#15 0x00007f3c0b23976b in mdb_put (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, dbi=5,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:9022
#16 0x00007f3c0c7124c5 in Baloo::DocumentDB::put
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727b960, docId=<optimized out>,
docId@entry=27041423333263366, list=...) at ./src/engine/documentdb.cpp:79
#17 0x00007f3c0c743da7 in Baloo::WriteTransaction::replaceDocument
(this=0x55e2ad7ea340, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/writetransaction.cpp:232
#18 0x00007f3c0c736b16 in Baloo::Transaction::replaceDocument
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727bc10, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/transaction.cpp:295
#19 0x000055e2ac5d6cbc in Baloo::UnindexedFileIndexer::run
(this=0x55e2ad79ca20) at
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtCore/qrefcount.h:60
#20 0x00007f3c0c177f82 in QThreadPoolThread::run (this=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthreadpool.cpp:99
#21 0x00007f3c0c1749d2 in QThreadPrivate::start (arg=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthread_unix.cpp:361
#22 0x00007f3c0b29d609 in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at
pthread_create.c:477
#23 0x00007f3c0bcb6103 in clone () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:95
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9193
Bug ID: 9193
Summary: HTML in mailing list description
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
e.g. https://lists.openldap.org/postorius/lists/openldap-devel.openldap.org/
contains code for links and formatting, but all inside of a <pre> block.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9823
Issue ID: 9823
Summary: syncprov doesn't fallback when deltasync consumer's
offline beyond accesslog depth
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.1
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
Configured w/ deltasync. When a consumer goes offline for a duration exceeding
the the logpurge interval, won't fallback into syncrepl, resulting in a dsync.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.