openldap-bugs March 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

2 participants
94 discussions

[Issue 9393] New: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9393 Issue ID: 9393 Summary: Provider a LDAP filter validation function Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.56 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: best(a)univention.de Target Milestone: --- In many situations I need to validate if a user submitted LDAP filter has valid syntax. It seems there is no official function to check this. Could you provide one? libraries/libldap/filter.c: ldap_pvt_put_filter() can be used as a basis. -- My current workaround is using a unconnected ldap connection and do a search with that filter. This yields a FILTER_ERROR (invalid filter) or a SERVER_DOWN error (invalid filter). See also: https://github.com/python-ldap/python-ldap/pull/272 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Bug 9211] New: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9211 Bug ID: 9211 Summary: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The following operations can be performed by anyone having 'write' access (not even 'manage') using the Relax control: - modifying/replacing structural objectClass - adding/modifying OBSOLETE attributes Some operations are correctly restricted: - adding/modifying NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes marked as manageable (Modification of non-conformant objects doesn't appear to be implemented at all.) In the absence of ACLs for controls, I'm of the opinion that all use of the Relax control should require manage access. The Relax draft clearly and repeatedly discusses its use cases in terms of directory _administrators_ temporarily relaxing constraints in order to accomplish a specific task. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 13

[Issue 9920] New: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9920 Issue ID: 9920 Summary: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC) Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Mac OS Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: info(a)parlepeuple.fr Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 915 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=915&action=edit proposed patch Hello, on master3, using the encryption at rest feature, I am testing as follow: - on a new named database, i set the encryption function with mdb_env_set_encrypt(env, encfunc, &enckey, 32) - note that I chose to have a size parameter (The size of authentication data in bytes, if any. Set this to zero for unauthenticated encryption mechanisms.) of 32 bytes. - I add 2 entries on the DB, trying to saturate the first page. I chose to add a key of 33 Bytes and a value of 1977 Bytes, so the size of each node is 2010 Bytes (obviously the 2 keys are different). - This passes and the DB has just one leaf_pages, no overflow_pages, no branch_pages, an a depth of 1. - If I add one byte to the values I insert (starting again from a blank DB), then , instead of seeing 2 overflow_pages, I get an error : MDB_PAGE_FULL. - this clearly should not have happened. - Here is some tracing : add to leaf page 2 index 0, data size 48 key size 7 [74657374646200] add to leaf page 3 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to branch page 5 index 0, data size 0 key size 0 [null] add to branch page 5 index 1, data size 0 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 1, data size 1978 key size 33 [020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202] not enough room in page 4, got 1 ptrs upper-lower = 2020 - 2 = 2016 node size = 2020 Looking at the code, I understand that there is a problem at line 9005 : } else if (node_size + data->mv_size > mc->mc_txn->mt_env->me_nodemax) { where me_nodemax is incorrect, as it is not taking into account that some bytes will be needed for the MAC authentication code, which size is in env->me_esumsize. me_nodemax is calculated at line 5349: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ ) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); So I substract me_esumsize with a "- env->me_esumsize" here: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ - env->me_esumsize) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); I also substract it from me_maxfree_1pg in the line above, and in pmax in line 10435. I do not know if my patch is correct, but it solves the issue. Maybe there are other places in the code where the me_esumsize should be substracted from the available size. By example, when calculating the number of overflow pages in OVPAGES, it does not take into account me_esumsize, but I think it is ok, because there is only one MAC for the entire set of OV pages, and there is room for it in the first OV page. See the attached proposed patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 40

[Issue 9596] New: Python test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9596 Issue ID: 9596 Summary: Python test suite Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- The bash test suite is extremely limited, hard to write for and slow. We can't lose it as it is also portable, but something should be introduced for developers/CI on more modern systems and increase coverage. A Python 3 seed for one is in development in MR!347. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9786] New: liblber: missing export of ber_pvt_wsa_err2string
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9786 Issue ID: 9786 Summary: liblber: missing export of ber_pvt_wsa_err2string Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.1 Hardware: All OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: tobias.junghans(a)veyon.io Target Milestone: --- When building (cross-compiling) OpenLDAP via GCC/mingw-w64, an undefined reference to ber_pvt_wsa_err2string() is reported when libldap.dll is linked. This can be fixed easily by adding ber_pvt_wsa_err2string() to libraries/liblber/lber.map -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9982] New: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9982 Issue ID: 9982 Summary: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: invokesus+openldap(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 942 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=942&action=edit Build log I'm encountering the following linker error when building from the master branch, with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS defined. /nix/store/jbnmj9fljgnfyc1iswnrpfhlkpnnwiii-binutils-2.39/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ber_sockbuf_io_udp' Seems to have been happening since https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/4a87d7aad200aaa91cb0cb8…. Attaching the full build log. Also, attaching in the next update, a patch to fix the error. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9909] New: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909 Issue ID: 9909 Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown 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: --- slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is never released on shutdown. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 9952] New: Crash on exit with OpenSSL 3
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9952 Issue ID: 9952 Summary: Crash on exit with OpenSSL 3 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.2 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: artur.zaprzala(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- A program using libldap will crash on exit after using SSL connection. How to reproduce on CentOS 9: Uncomment the following lines in /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf: [provider_sect] legacy = legacy_sect [legacy_sect] activate = 1 Run the command (you must enter a valid LDAP server address): python3 -c "import ldap; ldap.initialize('ldaps://<LDAP SERVER ADDRESS>').whoami_s()" Another example (no server required): python3 -c "import ctypes; ctypes.CDLL('libldap.so.2').ldap_pvt_tls_init_def_ctx(0)" Results: Segmentation fault (core dumped) Backtrace from gdb: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0 ___pthread_rwlock_rdlock (rwlock=0x0) at pthread_rwlock_rdlock.c:27 1 0x00007ffff7c92f3d in CRYPTO_THREAD_read_lock (lock=<optimized out>) at crypto/threads_pthread.c:85 2 0x00007ffff7c8b126 in ossl_lib_ctx_get_data (ctx=0x7ffff7eff540 <default_context_int.lto_priv>, index=1, meth=0x7ffff7eb8a00 <provider_store_method.lto_priv>) at crypto/context.c:398 3 0x00007ffff7c98bea in get_provider_store (libctx=<optimized out>) at crypto/provider_core.c:334 4 ossl_provider_deregister_child_cb (handle=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:1752 5 0x00007ffff7c8bf2f in ossl_provider_deinit_child (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/provider_child.c:279 6 OSSL_LIB_CTX_free (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/context.c:283 7 OSSL_LIB_CTX_free (ctx=0x5555555d2650) at crypto/context.c:276 8 0x00007ffff7634af6 in legacy_teardown (provctx=0x5555555ee9f0) at providers/legacyprov.c:168 9 0x00007ffff7c9901b in ossl_provider_teardown (prov=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:1477 10 ossl_provider_free (prov=0x5555555ed620) at crypto/provider_core.c:683 11 0x00007ffff7c63956 in ossl_provider_free (prov=<optimized out>) at crypto/provider_core.c:668 12 evp_cipher_free_int (cipher=0x555555916c10) at crypto/evp/evp_enc.c:1632 13 EVP_CIPHER_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at crypto/evp/evp_enc.c:1647 14 0x00007ffff7a6bc1d in ssl_evp_cipher_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:5925 15 ssl_evp_cipher_free (cipher=0x555555916c10) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:5915 16 SSL_CTX_free (a=0x555555ec1020) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:3455 17 SSL_CTX_free (a=0x555555ec1020) at ssl/ssl_lib.c:3392 18 0x00007fffe95edb89 in ldap_int_tls_destroy (lo=0x7fffe9616000 <ldap_int_global_options>) at /usr/src/debug/openldap-2.6.2-1.el9_0.x86_64/openldap-2.6.2/libraries/libldap/tls2.c:104 19 0x00007ffff7fd100b in _dl_fini () at dl-fini.c:138 20 0x00007ffff7873475 in __run_exit_handlers (status=0, listp=0x7ffff7a11658 <__exit_funcs>, run_list_atexit=run_list_atexit@entry=true, run_dtors=run_dtors@entry=true) at exit.c:113 21 0x00007ffff78735f0 in __GI_exit (status=<optimized out>) at exit.c:143 22 0x00007ffff785be57 in __libc_start_call_main (main=main@entry=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=argc@entry=4, argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:74 23 0x00007ffff785befc in __libc_start_main_impl (main=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe2b8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe2a8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:409 24 0x000055555556b575 in _start () The problem is that ldap_int_tls_destroy() is called after the clean up of libssl. On program exit, at first default_context_int is cleaned up (OPENSSL_cleanup() was registered with atexit()): 0 ossl_lib_ctx_default_deinit () at crypto/context.c:196 1 OPENSSL_cleanup () at crypto/init.c:424 2 OPENSSL_cleanup () at crypto/init.c:338 3 0x00007ffff7873475 in __run_exit_handlers (status=0, listp=0x7ffff7a11658 <__exit_funcs>, run_list_atexit=run_list_atexit@entry=true, run_dtors=run_dtors@entry=true) at exit.c:113 4 0x00007ffff78735f0 in __GI_exit (status=<optimized out>) at exit.c:143 5 0x00007ffff785be57 in __libc_start_call_main (main=main@entry=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=argc@entry=4, argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffe2c8) at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:74 6 0x00007ffff785befc in __libc_start_main_impl (main=0x55555556aa20 <main>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffe2c8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe2b8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:409 7 0x000055555556b575 in _start () Then ossl_lib_ctx_get_data() tries to use default_context_int.lock, which is NULL. ldap_int_tls_destroy() is called by ldap_int_destroy_global_options(), registered by "__attribute__ ((destructor))". It seems that shared library destructors are always called before functions registered with atexit(). A solution may be to modify libraries/libldap/init.c to use atexit() instead of "__attribute__ ((destructor))". atexit() manual page says: "Since glibc 2.2.3, atexit() can be used within a shared library to establish functions that are called when the shared library is unloaded.". Functions registered with atexit() are called in the reverse order of their registration, so libssl must by initialized before libldap. If the order is wrong, libldap should detect it somehow and exit with abort(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 28

[Issue 10141] New: 100% CPU consumption with ldap_int_tls_connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10141 Issue ID: 10141 Summary: 100% CPU consumption with ldap_int_tls_connect Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: vivekanand754(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- While doing secure ldap connection, i'm seeing that connection is getting stuck in read block in case it is unable to connect active directory sometime: ~ # strace -p 15049 strace: Process 15049 attached read(3, 0x55ef720bda53, 5) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) read(3, 0x55ef720bda53, 5) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) .. .. .. .. After putting some logs, I can see that "ldap_int_tls_start" function of "openldap-2.6.3/libraries/libldap/tls2.c" calls "ldap_int_tls_connect" in while loop. It seems to be blocking call, as it try to connect continuously until it get connected(ti_session_connect returns 0) and thus consumes 100% CPU during that time. Is there any known issue ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Issue 10155] New: Invalid [aka FUZZ] -F and -T options can core dump ldapsearch
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

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.

1 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2024