https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10100
Issue ID: 10100
Summary: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
Presents as a dsync during replication. Consumer will log
```
650af021.2eadd901 0000000000001b40 slap_queue_csn: queueing 0000000002ac1620
20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000
650af021.2eaed239 0000000000001b40 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing
0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000
650af021.317b2a35 000000000000185c do_syncrep2: rid=102 CSN too old, ignoring
20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000
(uid=slapd-test1-FOO1-6,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com)
```
The entry was not be added.
The provider will log messages using non-sequential timestamps. For example,
when grepping the CSN from above (in provider log):
```
# This:
650af021.3b3060d9 0000000000001ad8 conn=1001 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: to=002,
cookie=rid=102,sid=001,csn=20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000
# and:
650af021.02648749 0000000000001810 slap_get_csn: conn=1003 op=7 generated new
csn=20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1
```
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7400
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
head:
• ab55c7fd
by Howard Chu at 2024-02-06T01:22:58+00:00
ITS#7400 memberof: note consumers must use exattr
RE26:
• 6b81fca5
by Howard Chu at 2024-02-15T17:56:24+00:00
ITS#7400 memberof: note consumers must use exattr
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10178
Issue ID: 10178
Summary: deltaMPR conflict resolution issues
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review, replication
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1013
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1013&action=edit
Illustation environment
When a data conflict is introduced (multiple writes to the same entry in
different providers), there are three different strategies and they are
incompatible, see the attached test script for an example.
1. DeltaMPR providers have access to accesslog and reinterpret the operation as
if it happened in CSN order
2. Delta consumers (olcMultiProvider: FALSE) have the above code disabled so
have to accept the accesslog entry as-is, but the entry represents the
original, not reinterpreted write
3. plain syncrepl - just ignores the out of order version
This *cannot* (and does not) mesh well as at least 1. and 3. are always around
in deltaMPR.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10160
Issue ID: 10160
Summary: Add negset and negurl for slapo-constraint
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: manu(a)netbsd.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1003
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1003&action=edit
Add negset and negurl for slapo-constraint
Add negset and negurl constraints for slapo-constraint. THe two new types are
logical not of set and url. They will fire a constraint violation if the set or
LDAP URL query is non empty.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10163
Issue ID: 10163
Summary: Cleanup configure/test integration
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The sed commandline configure uses to perform substitutions is getting unwieldy
and may be exceeding platform limits on various systems.
All of the BUILD_xxx substitutions for overlays are only used in tests/run.in.
They could be completely removed, and instead each of the enabled overlays
could be emitted into a separate file that just gets included by the test
scripts. There's no need for them to be part of the sed invocation at all.
There's also leftover BUILD_xxx cruft from backends that we've removed (e.g.
back-shell BUILD_SHELL) that nothing else in the tree references any more.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10169
Issue ID: 10169
Summary: Add support for token only authentication with otp
overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
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: ---
Currently the OTP overlay is password + token. It would be nice to be able to
configure it so it can run in a token only mode, similar to the slapo-totp
overlay in contrib. This would allow us to have a project supported solution
and retire that contrib module.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10174
Issue ID: 10174
Summary: Fails to authenticate user against Active directory if
double space is present in the user's DN in AD
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.44
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: codedriller(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
In a proxy configuration when using Meta backend to connect to Active
directory, an AD user can't be authenticated through OpenLDAP if there is a
double space somewhere in his or her Active directory's DN, for example:
CN=John Doe,OU=IT Department,DC=example,DC=com.
I'm no LDAP expert but I suppose that the reason for this is that after slapd
does initial samAccountName search, it normalizes the found DN including
removing a double space according to RFC 2252 paragraph 8.1., then the bind
attempt is made using the normalized DN and it fails, because Active directory
has no built-in double space removal (or it can be disabled somehow), and the
normalized DN does not match the real DN in Active directory. Excuse me if my
usage of LDAP terms is not accurate.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5625
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |2.7.0
Ever confirmed|1 |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=7400
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|VERIFIED |UNCONFIRMED
Target Milestone|--- |2.6.8
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.