openldap-bugs September 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
106 discussions

[Issue 9677] New: Create "make install-strip” target
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Nov '23

14 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9677 Issue ID: 9677 Summary: Create "make install-strip” target Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- All open source make-based projects shall follow the same naming and semantics of targets, described at https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Standard-Targets.html . In particular “make install-strip” shall strip the binaries during the installation, while “make install” shall not strip them. In openldap currently “make install” does strip, which surprised me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10099] New: OpenLDAP version 2.5 & 2.6 causes IP connectivity to break and breaks basic commands like reboot
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Nov '23

09 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10099 Issue ID: 10099 Summary: OpenLDAP version 2.5 & 2.6 causes IP connectivity to break and breaks basic commands like reboot Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.16 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: amcwongahey(a)rbbn.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 980 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=980&action=edit The package Makefile I am upgrading openLDAP from version 2.4.59 to 2.5.16 and am running into show stopper issues. In my environment I am running CLIENT mode only (libldap). I have tried 2.5.16 with the following combinations: openSSL version 1.1.1s and 3.0.8 Kernel versions: 5.4.92, 4.19.192 and 2.6.32 Problems described below ONLY happens when connecting with a domain controller using LDAPS - does NOT happen with LDAP (non-secure). When I use ANY combination that includes kernel version 4 or 5 along with openLDAP 2.5.16 I get random lockups to the point where IP connectivity breaks into and out of the node. And also it is so completely hosed that even issuing a reboot command from the console completely hangs and does not restart the node. The problem happens roughly 50% of the time with openLDAP combined with version 5 kernel but happens noticeably less frequently with the version 4 kernel. As soon as I kill the process that invokes the connection with openLDAP the problem clears up. I invoke the connection with the following function call: nReturnCode = ldap_sasl_bind( m_pLD, m_ADBind.GetBindDN(), LDAP_SASL_SIMPLE, &stPassword, NULL, NULL, &nMsgID); I use simple auth simply because the entire connection is secured with TLS anyway and there is another functional reason which I cannot go into details on. OpenLDAP never returns from the ldap_sasl_bind function call. It hangs somewhere inside the library but that alone cannot account for the complete lockup where basic commands like reboot, etc do not work and where all IP connectivity breaks. It seems it has to be something with openLDAP and the Linux kernel combined that triggers this issue. I am hoping that someone who is much more familiar with the libldap part of the library will pick up on this and be able to determine how to fix this. As an FYI: I also tried the very first version of 2.5.1 (alpha release) and the latest 2.6 and the problem happens on those versions as well. To be clear the problem does NOT happen if I run openLDAP 2.5.16 with Linux kernel version 2.6.32. ADDITIONALLY ALL openSSL & kernel combinations works with openLDAP version 2.4.59! I am attaching the package Makefile to this report. Below is the ldap.conf contents: TLS_REQCERT never TLS_KEY /tmp/ssl/certs/server.pem TLS_CERT /tmp/ssl/certs/server.pem TLS_PROTOCOL_MIN 3.1 sasl_secprops maxssf=0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9612] New: Change index_hash64 default to on
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9612 Issue ID: 9612 Summary: Change index_hash64 default to on Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Change the default value of index_hash64. By default this means slapd won't run on a 32-bit CPU (It will continue to work on 32-bit OSes running on 64-bit CPUs). If someone needs to run slapd on a 32-bit CPU they can turn this option off. In the documentation, mark the option as deprecated for eventual removal in a future release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 9580] New: Refresh vs. accesslog in delta-MPR
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9580 Issue ID: 9580 Summary: Refresh vs. accesslog in delta-MPR Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: replication Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- A server consuming a plain syncrepl session (might be a delta-MMR refresh) still has to log the entries into accesslog, however that accesslog stops being capable of serving as a delta-sync source: - operation entryCSNs will be out-of-order - the changes logged will not be the intended modifications (e.g. if we fell back after a conflict, the conflicting entry will be replaced with the other version, other examples available) We need to deal with that somehow, at the very least we need to make sure the consumer will not take them at face value. We could record this in the accesslog root entry if we can detect when this starts and match it up with the final cookie, syncprov would still need some tweaks to understand it. We could mark the entries received this way and make sure delta-consumers treat them as "poison", as if they were running a plain syncrepl session themselves (not update contextCSN until that's finished, mark its own accesslog entries this way, ...). Anything like that needs guarantees that it will clean itself up once all of the real plain sessions finish otherwise we've lost delta-sync altogether. A different approach might or might not be needed for live delta-persist sessions replicating from a refreshing provider, but at least that syncprov has a way of detecting this live if it chooses to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 13

[Issue 9341] New: Delta-sync MPR needs to be stable regardless of ordering
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9341 Issue ID: 9341 Summary: Delta-sync MPR needs to be stable regardless of ordering Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: replication Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- If two or more updates are spread across several providers before they have a chance to learn about the others, all replicas need to arrive at the same content regardless of the order in which they arrive. One example that is broken at the moment: - (csn a) server 1 accepts a modify - (csn b) server 2 accepts a delete on the same DN - (csn c) server 2 accepts an add on that DN again If a replica receives the actions in the order bca vs. abc, the content of the entry will be different even though the final CSN set is the same -> they will never converge. The ordering 'bac' also needs to result in eventual convergence, even if it means a refresh or replication from either provider stalling temporarily? Merge request with this test case (so far): https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Issue 9577] New: slapd -V should be deprecated
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9577 Issue ID: 9577 Summary: slapd -V should be deprecated Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Sometimes a user's (present one included) ignorance gets them in trouble unnecessarily. The -V option is an example... Normally, when one wants to determine the version of a process, they use -V, or perhaps -v. With slapd, the daemon actually continues to run, which can have negative consequences. The doc clearly states that -VV is probably what the user wants, but is counter-intutive. Who RTFM's before checking the version? -V print version info (-VV exit afterwards, -VVV print info about static overlays and backends) I propose we eliminate the option to allow slapd to continue running after displaying the version. Perhaps we eliminate the -V option entirely, or just make it work the same as -VV. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9547] New: OpenLDAP does not send port as SPN when authenticating SASL GSSAPI
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9547 Issue ID: 9547 Summary: OpenLDAP does not send port as SPN when authenticating SASL GSSAPI Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.44 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: robert.wilson1717(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- When trying to authenticate to an ADLDS server using kerberos and a MIT ccache, OpenLdap only passes the hostname to the SASL mechanism, causing a mismatch between the SPN in the client "ldap/adlds.my.domain" and the one registered in AD "ldap/adlds.my.domain:50000" Is there a way fo forcing OpenLDAP to pass the port as part of the SASL request? Or is there a part of the OpenLDAP -> Cyprus-SASL -> MIT KRB5 chain where this can be enabled? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9506] New: dynlist: member expansion when member attribute not requested
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9506 Issue ID: 9506 Summary: dynlist: member expansion when member attribute not requested 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: --- When configured to do dynamic "member" expansion, i.e.: overlay dynlist dynlist-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL member Any query against an object that would trigger this expansion will incur a penalty while dynlist does the expansion work even if there was no request for the member attribute. Currently that can be worked around by specifying the manageDSAit control when doing a search on the object, but this may not be feasible for some client applications and additionally other directory servers do not do this expansion for their dynamic group implementations unless the underlying configured attribute is explicitly requested. We've already implemented this in dynlist for the memberOfAD case, we should do it here as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9269] New: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9269 Issue ID: 9269 Summary: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- "hidden" configuration option is ignored by slapd (not honored by "glue" overlay?) if the database it tries to hide is also a "subordinate" database. Checked for openldap 2.4.47 and current git master (f3952d9). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9244 Bug ID: 9244 Summary: API calls blocking after async connect Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 721 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=721&action=edit async connect test without TLS My understanding of LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is that the attached program should not block. If the connection does not establish fast enough, the bind call is supposed to return LDAP_X_CONNECTING. (At least that's how I understand it, based on the original behaviour (circa 2.4.23 up to 2.4.40) as well as the bind loop in back-meta. On the other hand, the man page does "Subsequent calls to library routines will poll for completion of the connect before performing further operations" which might be interpreted as meaning they would block...) In current releases it does block, as demonstrated by strace on Linux (latency added using 'tc qdisc'): [...] connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(389), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.204")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) poll([{fd=3, events=POLLOUT|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLOUT}]) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = 14 poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLIN}]) read(3, "0\f\2\1\1a\7\n", 8) = 8 read(3, "\1\0\4\0\4\0", 6) = 6 write(2, "OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 "..., 42OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 (Success) ) = 42 [...] As discussed in IRC, I believe I bisected this down to commit ae6347bac, from bug 8022. The reasoning is sound, but ldap_int_open_connection does not actually return -2, only -1 or 0. The patch is simple enough, but I'm also looking at some later commits that were probably done to work around this, and might not be needed now (bug 8957, bug 8968, bug 8980). Also need to test all setups thoroughly (ldap, ldaps, STARTTLS, not to mention back-meta/asyncmeta). I also notice that LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is not effective unless LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT is also set. It might be intentional, but the man page doesn't mention this specifically, and I don't see why it would be necessary... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 13

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2023