https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10269
Issue ID: 10269
Summary: slap-constraint: Refactor to use a sorted array
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.8
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
As noted in the comments for slapo-constraint:
/*
* Linked list of attribute constraints which we should enforce.
* This is probably a sub optimal structure - some form of sorted
* array would be better if the number of attributes constrained is
* likely to be much bigger than 4 or 5. We stick with a list for
* the moment.
*/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204
Bug ID: 9204
Summary: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
slapo-constraint doesn't limit who can use the Relax control, beyond the global
limits applied by slapd. In practice, for many modifications this means any
configured constraints are advisory only.
In my opinion this should be considered a bug, in design if not implementation.
I expect many admins would not read the man page closely enough to realize the
behaviour does technically adhere to the letter of what's written there.
Either slapd should require manage privileges for the Relax control globally,
or slapo-constraint should perform a check for manage privilege itself, like
slapo-unique does.
Quoting ando in https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705#c4:
> Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass
> constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax"
> control. The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be
> able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good
> reasons. Note that the user:
>
> - must have enough privileges to do it (manage)
>
> - must inform the DSA that intends to violate the constraint (by using
> the control)
but such privileges are currently not being required.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6198
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ryan(a)openldap.org
--- Comment #7 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
*** Issue 9211 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6462
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Target Milestone|--- |2.7.0
Resolution|SUSPENDED |---
Status|VERIFIED |UNCONFIRMED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5919
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|SUSPENDED |---
Target Milestone|--- |2.7.0
Status|VERIFIED |UNCONFIRMED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9042
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |ondra(a)mistotebe.net
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10258
Issue ID: 10258
Summary: test050 failure: connection_close race?
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: ---
Created attachment 1032
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1032&action=edit
tail of slapd log
Running test050 repeatedly, the slapd managed to get itself into an apparent
inconsistency in the connections structure. The logs suggest that there might
be a race closing the connection. Unfortunately the sanitiser didn't initiate a
core dump in this case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10266
Issue ID: 10266
Summary: Adopt broader RFC4511 NoD interpretation on lloadd's
client side
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Server side, lloadd has long implemented a broad interpretation of NoD
unsolicited response handling: when the message is issued, no new requests are
accepted on the session however the client and server are both free to keep the
session open if there are any operations that have not resolved yet. The server
is still expected to close the connection as soon as no operations are still
pending.
This seems to interoperate with known clients. Those that want to will close
the session immediately, unaware of this possibility, those that also want to
interpret RFC 4511 this way can choose to wait for existing operations to
resolve.
This ticket is to track the lloadd's implementation of the client side of this
- when receiving a NoD message, we don't close the connection
immediately+unconditionally either but are willing to wait.
Related functionality:
- if connection was a bind connection processing a multi-stage SASL bind, the
bind should fail if/when the client attempts to progress it
- clients assigned to this connection through coherence at least 'connection'
are also marked closing
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10234
Issue ID: 10234
Summary: syncrepl does not reset the retrynum
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.8
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hamano(a)osstech.co.jp
Target Milestone: ---
```
syncrepl
retry="5 10 30 +"
```
When replication fails with the above settings, syncrepl retries "10 times at 5
second intervals". Then, the retry count should be reset on the next
replication failure.
In actual, it does not reset. The behavior is as follows:
```
(first time replication failure)
do_syncrepl: rid=001 rc -1 retrying (9 retries left)
do_syncrepl: rid=001 rc -1 retrying (8 retries left)
(resume replication)
(second time replication failure)
do_syncrepl: rid=001 rc -1 retrying (7 retries left)
do_syncrepl: rid=001 rc -1 retrying (6 retries left)
```
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.