https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10073
Issue ID: 10073
Summary: database monitor | slapd fails to start when "database
ldap" without suffix exists
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.14
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: cyusedfzfb(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
As requested on the mailinglist, I am filing an issue for this behaviour:
Today setup the cn=Monitor backend, and after doing so, openldap failed to
start with:
backend_startup_one (type=monitor, suffix="cn=Monitor"): bi_db_open failed!
(-1)
The reason turned out to be: we had configured one of our databases ("database
ldap") without a suffix.
After I added a suffix, openldap started, and cn=Monitor worked as expected.
It would be nice if this error message could become a little bit more specific.
:-)
Also: we've had the "database ldap" without a suffix in production working for
many years. Perhaps cn=Monitor should be able to deal with that config as
well..?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9244
Bug ID: 9244
Summary: API calls blocking after async connect
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.49
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 721
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=721&action=edit
async connect test without TLS
My understanding of LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is that the attached program should
not block. If the connection does not establish fast enough, the bind call is
supposed to return LDAP_X_CONNECTING.
(At least that's how I understand it, based on the original behaviour (circa
2.4.23 up to 2.4.40) as well as the bind loop in back-meta. On the other hand,
the man page does "Subsequent calls to library routines will poll for
completion of the connect before performing further operations" which might be
interpreted as meaning they would block...)
In current releases it does block, as demonstrated by strace on Linux (latency
added using 'tc qdisc'):
[...]
connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(389),
sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.204")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in
progress)
write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
unavailable)
poll([{fd=3, events=POLLOUT|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3,
revents=POLLOUT}])
write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = 14
poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLIN}])
read(3, "0\f\2\1\1a\7\n", 8) = 8
read(3, "\1\0\4\0\4\0", 6) = 6
write(2, "OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 "..., 42OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned
0 (Success)
) = 42
[...]
As discussed in IRC, I believe I bisected this down to commit ae6347bac, from
bug 8022. The reasoning is sound, but ldap_int_open_connection does not
actually return -2, only -1 or 0.
The patch is simple enough, but I'm also looking at some later commits that
were probably done to work around this, and might not be needed now (bug 8957,
bug 8968, bug 8980). Also need to test all setups thoroughly (ldap, ldaps,
STARTTLS, not to mention back-meta/asyncmeta).
I also notice that LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is not effective unless
LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT is also set. It might be intentional, but the man page
doesn't mention this specifically, and I don't see why it would be necessary...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9729
Issue ID: 9729
Summary: Allow setting multiprovider before adding syncrepl
stanzas
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: ---
It should be possible to set multiprovider first, avoiding the window of the DB
being read-only while performing an online upgrade of a single provider to an
MPR set up and generally simplifying configuration.
Instead, the only requirement should be that serverID has been explicitly set
(hopefully != 0).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9642
Issue ID: 9642
Summary: Adding a task to runqueue doesn't wake the main thread
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
If a connection adds a new syncrepl stanza, that is not started until the main
thread comes around to doing it. However if that thread is currently stuck in
SLAP_EVENT_WAIT() and nothing else happens (like an unbind over the connection
that modified the config), the task is never started. This can take a long
time.
No idea yet how to wake it up with/from ldap_pvt_runqueue_insert() given that
sits within libldap and not really something that should be calling
slap_wake_listener().
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9577
Issue ID: 9577
Summary: slapd -V should be deprecated
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
Sometimes a user's (present one included) ignorance gets them in trouble
unnecessarily. The -V option is an example...
Normally, when one wants to determine the version of a process, they use -V, or
perhaps -v. With slapd, the daemon actually continues to run, which can have
negative consequences.
The doc clearly states that -VV is probably what the user wants, but is
counter-intutive. Who RTFM's before checking the version?
-V print version info (-VV exit afterwards, -VVV print
info about static overlays and backends)
I propose we eliminate the option to allow slapd to continue running after
displaying the version. Perhaps we eliminate the -V option entirely, or just
make it work the same as -VV.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10301
Issue ID: 10301
Summary: Use assertion control in lastbind chaining
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: ---
Take a setup with a bunch of consumers tracking lastbind information and
replicating this back from the provider. If a client sends a lot of successful
binds to it in a very short window, the changes might not have a chance to
replicate down so each of these binds has to trigger a new modification to be
forwarded.
This results in a lot of DB churn and replication traffic that is actually
meaningless (the pwdLastChange values before and after each of the mods will be
the same).
We probably can't avoid having to send something, but the change we send could
have an assertion control attached that lets the provider skip it if
pwdLastChange>=new_value, saving on all of the additional processing (and
additional useless replication traffic).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10278
Issue ID: 10278
Summary: Move away from python-ldap0 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: ---
While python-ldap0 has a superior API, it seems the module is no longer
receiving any development. We should move our python test suite over to another
module that can be supported long-term.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.