https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303
Issue ID: 9303
Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an
alternative to OpenSSL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9284
Issue ID: 9284
Summary: Need man page for vc contrib overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The verified credentials overlay in contrib is missing a man page describing
its purpose
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9272
Issue ID: 9272
Summary: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.47
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Here is a trivial test case. Look at the following bunch of glued
dit's/databases, declared in this order:
| suffix ou=a,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry
| suffix ou=2,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry
| suffix ou=b,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry
| suffix ou=T # master database, has two entries, top-level
| ` ou=1 # ... and this child entry
let's query the united database:
| $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub '' nx
| dn: ou=1,ou=T
| dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T
| dn: ou=b,ou=1,ou=T
Nice! But wait, what if ...
| $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub -E\!pr=2/noprompt '' nx
| dn: ou=1,ou=T
| dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T
|
| # pagedresults: cookie=//////////8=
... BANG! ...
| Server is unwilling to perform (53)
The problem is the glue_op_search(), which has issues
* different parts of code make different assumptions about data structures
* different parts of code track state inconsistently
* code that looks like a highly probably dead code
I mean that likely possible to build another bug-triggering test cases, and
glue_op_search() needs not just a fix of the bug above, but intense cleaning
and structuring.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9256
Bug ID: 9256
Summary: The ACLs required for SASL binding are not fully
documented
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kop(a)karlpinc.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 727
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=727&action=edit
Patch massaging the SASL binding requirement docs
While some ACL requirements for SASL binding are documented, some are not.
E.g, that olcAuthzRegexp requires =x on objectClass when direct DN mapping is
not documented. Other requirements can be reasoned out based on the existing
documentation, but this can be very difficult when unfamiliar with all the
moving parts and the places they are documented. E.g. knowing that
(objectClass=*) is the default filter, and that there's _always_ _some_ filter,
and connecting this with ACLs required to do search-based SASL mapping.
The attached patch brings all the SASL binding requirements together in one
place in the docs and makes everything explicit. The word "SASL" is included,
for those searching for that keyword.
I, Karl O. Pinc, hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP Software
(and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these
modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or
without attribution and/or other notice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9220
Bug ID: 9220
Summary: Rewrite Bind and Exop result handling
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Bind and Exop result handling needs a rewrite so it is no longer a special case
for overlays.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9717
Issue ID: 9717
Summary: The RADIUSOV overlay can be incorporated into OpenLDAP
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: rdubner(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10409
Issue ID: 10409
Summary: Implement password policies for the rootdn
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.10
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: 31621968(a)qq.com
Target Milestone: ---
We have successfully configured the Password Policy overlay (ppolicy) on our
OpenLDAP server. This configuration ensures that accounts are locked after
exceeding the maximum number of failed bind attempts, as defined by the policy.
For example, if the ppolicy is set to lock an account after 5 failed bind
attempts, the server enforces this behavior effectively for all users under the
ppolicy scope.
However, we have observed that the rootdn user does not seem to be subject to
these same password policies. Specifically, even when the rootdn exceeds the
maximum number of failed bind attempts, it does not get locked or restricted in
any way.
We would like to know if there is a way to apply the same password policies
(e.g., account locking after failed bind attempts) to the rootdn.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10406
Issue ID: 10406
Summary: Write regression since 0.9.19
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.33
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ben.alex(a)acegi.com.au
Target Milestone: ---
I maintain LmdbJava, a Java wrapper for LMDB. We have an extensive benchmark
suite covering read, cursor, and write pathways, with isolated testing of LMDB
versions from 0.9.17 through 0.9.33.
Results: https://lmdb-benchmark.lmdbjava.org/
==============================================
SUMMARY
==============================================
Read performance: 0.9.33 consistently outperforms 0.9.17 across all read
benchmarks.
Write performance: Consistent regression since 0.9.19:
----------------------------------
Tag ms/op vs 0.9.17
----------------------------------
LMDB_0.9.17 75.790 baseline
LMDB_0.9.18 74.909 -1.2%
LMDB_0.9.19 81.404 +7.4%
LMDB_0.9.20 83.459 +10.1%
LMDB_0.9.21 83.237 +9.8%
LMDB_0.9.22 83.027 +9.5%
LMDB_0.9.23 82.870 +9.3%
LMDB_0.9.24 82.952 +9.4%
LMDB_0.9.27 82.989 +9.5%
LMDB_0.9.28 83.025 +9.5%
LMDB_0.9.29 83.063 +9.6%
LMDB_0.9.30 83.237 +9.8%
LMDB_0.9.31 88.419 +16.7%
LMDB_0.9.33 83.304 +9.9%
Excluding 0.9.31 as an outlier, write performance degraded by approximately 9%
from 0.9.20 and has remained at that level through 0.9.33.
==============================================
BENCHMARK DETAILS
==============================================
The write benchmark sequentially inserts 1,000,000 entries (100-byte values,
4-byte integer keys) into a database opened with MDB_INTEGERKEY, using a single
cursor with MDB_APPEND flag. The benchmark includes 2 warmup iterations and 3
measurement iterations of 120 seconds each.
==============================================
ANALYSIS
==============================================
Reviewing the commit history, the regressions appear linked to correctness
fixes:
- 0.9.19: ITS#8406 (xcursor fixup after cursor_del)
- 0.9.20: ITS#8557 (cursor_last and C_EOF handling)
Both issues added cursor state management overhead in write-heavy code paths.
==============================================
REQUEST
==============================================
Could you please reproduce this regression using a native C benchmark to
confirm it's not JNI-specific? If confirmed, this may be a necessary
performance/correctness tradeoff given that most LMDB workloads are read-heavy.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10383
Issue ID: 10383
Summary: slapd-meta ignores olcDbIDAssertBind if olcDbURI
defined after it
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.9
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: david.frickert(a)protonmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
We are using slapd-meta to connect an OpenLDAP server to another external LDAP
server and it works well on first configuration.
However, if we want to update any info, e.g. the external LDAP URI, we must
replace the olcDbURI attribute. This means that the ordering of the attributes
change and this attribute is now defined after olcDbIDAssertBind.
Didn't think this would be important, but after this change the "meta"
connection stops working and upon enabling debugging i can see that the
external LDAP server is responding with:
"ldap_bind: Inappropriate authentication (48)
additional info: Anonymous Simple Bind Disabled"
This seems to imply that the olcDbIDAssertBind attribute is being ignored,
likely due to being defined before olcDbURI (my assumption).
Is this intended? If so, what can we do to mitigate this problem?
Do we need to perform a replace on all attributes of the object to ensure
correct ordering, or is there any way to perform an in-place attribute
modification without making it shift its position in the object?
Example:
First configuration (OK):
# {0}uri, {2}meta, config
dn: olcMetaSub={0}uri,olcDatabase={2}meta,cn=config
objectClass: olcMetaTargetConfig
olcMetaSub: {0}uri
--> olcDbURI: ldap://REDACTED/ou=users,REDACTED
olcDbIDAssertBind: bindmethod=simple starttls=yes tls_reqcert=demand
binddn="REDACTED" credentials="REDACTED"
olcDbRewrite: {0}suffixmassage REDACTED REDACTED
olcDbKeepalive: 0:0:0
olcDbBindTimeout: 100000
olcDbCancel: abandon
After URI update (NOK):
# {0}uri, {2}meta, config
dn: olcMetaSub={0}uri,olcDatabase={2}meta,cn=config
objectClass: olcMetaTargetConfig
olcMetaSub: {0}uri
olcDbIDAssertBind: bindmethod=simple starttls=yes tls_reqcert=demand
binddn="REDACTED" credentials="REDACTED"
olcDbRewrite: {0}suffixmassage REDACTED REDACTED
olcDbKeepalive: 0:0:0
olcDbBindTimeout: 100000
olcDbCancel: abandon
--> olcDbURI: ldap://REDACTED/ou=users,REDACTED
The olcDbURI attribute is shifted to the bottom after a modify operation, and
seems to cause these issues.
Best Regards,
David
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10398
Issue ID: 10398
Summary: memberof and refint clash on subtree renames
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.10
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
If a group and its members are under a subtree that got renamed, refint will
trigger, and try to update all the relevant DNs. When it processes the group
entry, it will issue Modifies to update the DNs of the group's members. The
memberof overlay will see these modifies and start trying to update the
corresponding memberof values but will only succeed halfway.
It will try to delete the old memberof value from the old member DN's entry,
which fails because the subtree has renamed all the entries. Then it will try
to add the new memberof value to the new member DN's entry, which succeeds.
Then eventually refint will try to process the member's. It will try to delete
the old memberof value from the new entry, and add the new memberof value to
the entry. This modify request fails because the new value is already present.
The entry is left with a memberof value that points to the obsolete group DN.
The solution is for refint to set the manageDsaIt control on its repair ops,
and for memberof to ignore Modify requests with this control set.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.