openldap-bugs March 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

2 participants
90 discussions

[Issue 10179] New: back-asyncmeta(5) man page incorrectly mentions "rewrite"
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10179 Issue ID: 10179 Summary: back-asyncmeta(5) man page incorrectly mentions "rewrite" Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Man page for back-asyncmeta mentions the rewrite options, yet asyncmeta does not support the rewrite engine at the moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10164] New: back-meta hangs when used with dynlist overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 May '24

21 May '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10164 Issue ID: 10164 Summary: back-meta hangs when used with dynlist overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- When back-meta is configured with the dynlist overlay, on a search request that triggers dynlist, it will hang. This happens because of a bug in back-meta that is only revealed when an overlay issues an internal operation while processing a result or an entry, as dynlist does, as apposed to issuing it when the client op is first received ( on the way "down" to the backend). The issue is reproduced by configuring dynlist over a back-meta database, and sending a subtree search request with the database suffix as dn. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9921] New: Tautology in clients/tools/common.c:print_vlv()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 May '24

08 May '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9921 Issue ID: 9921 Summary: Tautology in clients/tools/common.c:print_vlv() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/clients/tools/comm… contains: tool_write_ldif( ldif ? LDIF_PUT_COMMENT : LDIF_PUT_VALUE, ldif ? "vlvResult" : "vlvResult", buf, rc ); The second parameter is always vlvResult, irrespective of the value of ldif. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10084] New: Move away from DIGEST-MD5 as a default in the test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 May '24

07 May '24

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.

1 4

[Issue 10195] New: permissive modify control without value
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10195 Issue ID: 10195 Summary: permissive modify control without value Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: lesignor(a)cirad.fr Target Milestone: --- Hello, A windows ldap client (dotnet) format the request with oid permissive modify control like this : 00d0 30 84 00 00 00 1e 04 17 ........0....... 00e0 31 2e 32 2e 38 34 30 2e 31 31 33 35 35 36 2e 31 1.2.840.113556.1 00f0 2e 34 2e 31 34 31 33 01 01 ff 04 00 .4.1413..... The last 2 bytes 04 00 seems to indicate no value (length of value = 0 ?). With openldap 2.4.x this request was accepted. With openldap 2.5.x or openldap 2.6.x, this request is rejected for invalid protocol with error message : permissiveModify control value not absent With ldapmodify from openldap, the same request is formatted without the last 2 bytes and is accepted. Could it be possible to accept request with control without value formatted with 04 00 to indicate no value ? It will help to migrate from openldap 2.4.x to 2.5.x or 2.6.x Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10155] New: Invalid [aka FUZZ] -F and -T options can core dump ldapsearch
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '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 5

[Issue 9934] New: slapd-config(5) should document how to store certificates for slapd usage
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

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.

1 7

[Issue 10020] New: dynlist's @groupOfUniqueNames is considered only for the first configuration line
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

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.

1 7

[Issue 10026] New: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

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.

1 7

[Issue 10071] New: Extra sids in cookie should only be ignored for replay consideration
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '24

16 Apr '24

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.

1 3

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2024