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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
--- Comment #4 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
We can't simply add this to the pwdPolicy objectclass since that is a
standardized class. Also the values of crypt schemes are server specific, not
standardized at all.
A solution for us would be to define an OpenLDAP-specific subclass of the
pwdPolicy class, and add whatever we need to in there and use it going forward.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6938
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |mhardin(a)symas.com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Matt to confirm slapd can listen to IPv6 on Windows, and that the ldap client
tools can talk to slapd over IPv6 on windows.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6765
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Server-side support of |SASL support of "Verify
|"Verify Credentials" extop |Credentials" extop
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6942
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |ondra(a)mistotebe.net
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6531
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |ondra(a)mistotebe.net
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217
Issue ID: 10217
Summary: autoca should support more key types
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.7
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: enhancement
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently autoca only creates certificates using RSA keypairs. It should at
least have an option to use Elliptic Curve keypairs. It probably also needs
options to specify other signature algorithms other than the default of SHA256.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9813
Issue ID: 9813
Summary: Incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy
overlays
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: thierry.pubellier(a)paris.fr
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
We are planning to use OpenLDAP as a proxy for some users in our Active
Directory servers, using remoteauth overlay.
We want this OpenLDAP instance to also implement an account lockout policy,
preventing the lockout on our internal Active Directory servers.
But there seems to be an incompatibility between remoteauth and ppolicy
overlays : remoteauth won't remote authenticate a user if local userPassword
attribute exists, while ppolicy overlay needs this attribute.
Could there be a configuration parameter in ppolicy to allow lockout
checks/modifications (which seemed to be the default behavior of OpenLDAP
before ITS#7089) ?
I can provide a patch if allowed.
Thanks by advance,
Best regards,
Thierry
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9343
Issue ID: 9343
Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL
filter
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that
any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed
to have something other than the default policy.
Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a
policy applied to them.
For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a
policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle
creating groups of users in dynlist
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8476
--- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Seems like a good idea. For constraints where no custom message was provided,
we could return the constraint number to provide a pointer to which constraint
was triggered.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.