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=10155
Issue ID: 10155
Summary: Invalid [aka FUZZ] -F and -T options can core dump
ldapsearch
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: doug.leavitt(a)oracle.com
Target Milestone: ---
A customer reported core dumps in ldapsearch which has been tracked
to the the improper use of the -F and -T options.
The customer confirmed removing the invalid -F and -T options
from their script eliminated the core dumps.
The CLI arguments of the failing ldapsearch look like:
ldapsearch <good CLI args> -F , -T u <good filter and attr args>
The good CLI args include proper uses of -H... -x -D ... -w ... -b ... -s ...
The good filter and attrs are also valid CLI inputs.
The "bad" args are <sp>-F<sp><COMMA><sp>-T<sp>-u<sp>
The -u is also valid but it is consumed as a directory name of -T
From man page and code review the the -F argument is supposed to be
a valid URL. and the -T argument is supposed to be a valid directory
The core file output indicates that main calls free
after the search takes place. The location is believed to be
here:
1658 if ( urlpre != NULL ) {
1659 if ( def_urlpre != urlpre )
1660 free( def_urlpre ); <---------
1661 free( urlpre );
1662 }
...
1672 tool_exit( ld, rc );
...
This is the first example of the use of -F we have seen
so it is unclear how this should be fixed.
But code review of ldapsearch.c and common.c exposed a few
weaknesses that could help in addressing the issue.
Observed weaknesses:
The getopt processing code for -T does not check that the arg is
actually a directory and fail/error when bad input is provided.
Perhaps at least an access(2) check should be performed?
It is unclear if -F should only accept file:// URLs. The existing code
does not sufficiently check any URL format instead it processes the
argument by looking for the first '/' [no error checking] and determine
the remainder to be a tmpdir location similar to the -T argument.
So, Fuzz input of <COMMA> seems to eventually lead to the core files.
It is unclear if -F and -T should be mutually exclusive or not.
It seems like the fix to this issue is to add better error
checking and to fail on FUZZ inputs. I defer a solution
to upstream as it probably requires project direction I lack.
--
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=10168
Issue ID: 10168
Summary: olcdbindex doesn't cleanup cleanly
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: ---
if you run the following modify against slapd (notice the olcDbMultival data is
wrong), slapd aborts in mdb_cf_cleanup->mdb_attr_dbs_open when cleaning up the
olcDbIndex changes:
dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config
changetype: modify
add: olcDbIndex
olcDbIndex: member eq
olcDbIndex: memberof eq
-
add: olcDbMultival
olcDbMultival: member,memberOf 5,15
-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10162
Issue ID: 10162
Summary: Fix for binary attributes data corruption in back-sql
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dex.tracers(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1006
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1006&action=edit
Fix for binary attributes corruption on backed-sql
I've configured slapd to use back-sql (mariadb through odbc) and observed
issues with the BINARY data retrievals from the database. The length of the
attributes was properly reported, but the correct data inside was always 16384
bytes and after that point - some junk (usually filled-up with AAAAAAAA and
some other attributes data from memory).
During the debugging - I've noticed that:
- The MAX_ATTR_LEN (16384 bytes) is used to set the length of the data for
BINARY columns when SQLBindCol is done inside of the
"backsql_BindRowAsStrings_x" function
- After SQLFetch is done - data in row->cols[i] is fetched up to the specified
MAX_ATTR_LEN
- After SQLFetch is done - the correct data size (greater than MAX_ATTR_LEN) is
represented inside of the row->value_len
I'm assuming that slapd allocates the pointer in memory (row->cols[i]), fills
it with the specified amount of data (MAX_ATTR_LEN), but when forming the
actual attribute data - uses the length from row->value_len and so everything
from 16384 bytes position till row->value_len is just a junk from the memory
(uninitialized, leftovers, data from other variables).
After an investigation, I've find-out that:
- for BINARY or variable length fields - SQLGetData should be used
- SQLGetData supports chunked mode (if length is unknown) or full-read mode if
the length is known
- it could be used in pair with SQLBindCol after SQLFetch (!)
Since we have the correct data length inside of row->value_len, I've just added
the code to the backsql_get_attr_vals() function to overwrite the corrupted
data with the correct data by issuing SQLGetData request. And it worked -
binary data was properly retrieved and reported over LDAP!
My current concerns / help needed - I'm not very familiar with the memory
allocation/deallocation mechanisms, so I'm afraid that mentioned change can
lead to memory corruption (so far not observed).
Please review attached patch (testing was done on OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_5_13, and
applied on the master branch for easier review/application).
--
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.