openldap-bugs June 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

2 participants
59 discussions

[Issue 10020] New: dynlist's @groupOfUniqueNames is considered only for the first configuration line
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Nov '24

13 Nov '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 8

[Issue 9934] New: slapd-config(5) should document how to store certificates for slapd usage
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Nov '24

13 Nov '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 8

[Issue 10226] New: [PATCH] ldap.conf: some remarks and editorial fixes for this man page
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Nov '24

13 Nov '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10226 Issue ID: 10226 Summary: [PATCH] ldap.conf: some remarks and editorial fixes for this man page Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: bjarniig(a)vortex.is Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1020 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1020&action=edit Remarks and editotiral fixes for the manual ldap.conf.5 Version 2.6.8 is not named on the webpage when entering an issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10106] New: Add organization to web list of OpenLDAP support providers
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10106 Issue ID: 10106 Summary: Add organization to web list of OpenLDAP support providers Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sudo(a)migrateq.io Target Milestone: --- Hello! This request is being opened as suggested by Quanah Gibson-Mount. Could you please add Migrateq to your OpenLDAP Support page on https://openldap.org/support Company: Migrateq Inc. Website: https://migrateq.io/support/tech/openldap Migrateq provides migrations, integrations and advanced 24/7/365 technical support for OpenLDAP and most Linux and Open Source Software. Thank you =) Richard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Issue 10141] New: 100% CPU consumption with ldap_int_tls_connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '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 17

[Issue 10155] New: Invalid [aka FUZZ] -F and -T options can core dump ldapsearch
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '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 8

[Issue 9393] New: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '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 12

[Issue 9914] New: Add OS pagesize to the back-mdb monitor information
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9914 Issue ID: 9914 Summary: Add OS pagesize to the back-mdb monitor information Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The pagesize that back-mdb is using for pages should be exposed via the cn=monitor backend, as a remote client doing a query will not have that information available to it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs June 2024