https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9497
Issue ID: 9497
Summary: back-ldif: test022-ppolicy failure
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hamano(a)osstech.co.jp
Target Milestone: ---
The test022-ppolicy with back-ldif fail for two issue.
1. too short pwdMaxAge
~~~
$ ./run -b ldif test022-ppolicy
(snip)
Testing password expiration
Waiting seconds for password to expire...
sleep: missing operand
Try 'sleep --help' for more information.
Password expiration test failed
~~~
The script tries test for lockout and then a test for password expiration.
It will fail if the password has expired(pwdMaxAge: 30) by the time it starts
the password expiration test.
This is a timing issue and not directly caused by back-ldif.
However, the issue is reproduced only with back-ldif in my environment.
This test passed in my environment by extending pwdMaxAge by 5 seconds, but
there may be a better way.
2. duplicate ldap control response
~~~
Reconfiguring policy to remove grace logins...
Clearing forced reset...
expr: syntax error: unexpected argument '15'
Testing password expiration
Waiting seconds for password to expire...
sleep: missing operand
Try 'sleep --help' for more information.
~~~
This is back-ldif issue.
back-ldif responds duplicate ldap control response.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9739
Issue ID: 9739
Summary: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: simon.pichugin(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
While I was trying to build OpenLDAP 2.6 on Fedora Rawhide I've got the error
message:
/usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to
`ber_sockbuf_io_udp'
I've checked commits from https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 and
found that 'ber_sockbuf_io_udp' was not added to
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/liblber/…
I've asked on the project's mailing list and got a reply:
"That symbol only exists if OpenLDAP is built with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
defined, which is not a supported feature. Feel free to file a bug report
at https://bugs.openldap.org/"
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/…
Hence, creating the bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10280
Issue ID: 10280
Summary: Combining positive & negated filters doesn't work with
dynlist
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.18
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: code(a)pipoprods.org
Target Milestone: ---
The directory contains 3 users & 2 groups.
user1 is in group1, user2 is in group2, user3 isn't is any group.
Filter [1] matches users that are either:
- member of group1
- member of group2
✅ It returns user1 & user2
Filter [2] matches user that are:
- not member of group1 nor group2
✅ It returns user3
Filter [3] should match users that are either:
- member of group1
- member of group2
- not member of group1 nor group2
❌ It should return the 3 users but only returns users matched by the first part
of the filter (whatever the first part, if we swap both parts we get the
complementary search results)
Filter [1]:
(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com))
Filter [2]:
(!(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)))
Filter [3]:
(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(!(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com))))
Here's my dynlist config:
```
dn: olcOverlay={2}dynlist,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config
objectClass: olcOverlayConfig
objectClass: olcDynListConfig
olcOverlay: {2}dynlist
olcDynListAttrSet: {0}groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames
structuralObjectClass: olcDynListConfig
entryUUID: 7df8328a-fd72-103e-82df-6fed25d5f6c8
creatorsName: cn=config
createTimestamp: 20240902122741Z
entryCSN: 20240902122741.257759Z#000000#000#000000
modifiersName: cn=config
modifyTimestamp: 20240902122741Z
```
Here's a LDIF to initialise directory contents:
```
dn: ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: organizationalUnit
ou: example-groups
dn: ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: organizationalUnit
ou: example-users
dn: uid=user1,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: inetOrgPerson
cn: User
sn: One
uid: user1
dn: uid=user2,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: inetOrgPerson
cn: User
sn: Two
uid: user2
dn: uid=user3,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: inetOrgPerson
cn: User
sn: Three
uid: user3
dn: cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: groupOfNames
cn: group1
member: uid=user1,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
dn: cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com
changetype: add
objectClass: groupOfNames
cn: group2
member: uid=user2,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com
```
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9593
Issue ID: 9593
Summary: excessive null check in set_chase()
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Looks like slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals ) can't return null, so return
value at line 411 should be treated like one at line 402:
servers/slapd/sets.c:399, set_chase():
for ( i = 0; !BER_BVISNULL( &set[ i ] ); i++ ) {
vals = gatherer( cp, &set[ i ], desc );
if ( vals != NULL ) {
/*402: */ nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals );
}
}
ber_bvarray_free_x( set, cp->set_op->o_tmpmemctx );
if ( closure ) {
for ( i = 0; !BER_BVISNULL( &nset[ i ] ); i++ ) {
vals = gatherer( cp, &nset[ i ], desc );
if ( vals != NULL ) {
/*411: */ nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals );
if ( nset == NULL ) {
break;
}
}
}
}
diff --git a/servers/slapd/sets.c b/servers/slapd/sets.c
index fc7b72c8b..17a6ec2c1 100644
--- a/servers/slapd/sets.c
+++ b/servers/slapd/sets.c
@@ -409,9 +409,6 @@ set_chase( SLAP_SET_GATHER gatherer,
vals = gatherer( cp, &nset[ i ], desc );
if ( vals != NULL ) {
nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals );
- if ( nset == NULL ) {
- break;
- }
If I'm wrong, return value at line 402 must be checked for null.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10254
Issue ID: 10254
Summary: Allow upgrading password hash on bind
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: me(a)floriswesterman.nl
Target Milestone: ---
Many OpenLDAP installations are likely to contain relatively old password
hashes such as SSHA and CRYPT, as modern alternatives such as Argon are only
recent additions. Due to the nature of password hashes, it is of course not
possible to "unhash" the old values and rehash them with a more modern
algorithm. The presence of these old password hashes poses a liability in case
of information leaks or hacks.
Currently, the only way to upgrade a password hash is to wait for the user to
change their password. This can be sped up by expiring passwords and forcing
users to change them. However, this can be slow and frequent password rotation
is no longer considered a best practice.
It would be a very helpful addition to add support for upgrading a password
hash on bind. This is implemented in the 389 directory server:
https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/pwupgrade-on-bind.html
Essentially, when a user binds, the password is checked like normal. In case of
a successful bind, the proposed feature would check the hash algorithm used for
the password; and in case it is not equal to the current `olcPasswordHash`
value, the user-provided password is rehashed using the new algorithm and
stored. This way, the old hashes are phased out more quickly, without being a
disturbance to users.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9651
Issue ID: 9651
Summary: Add some kind of rate limiting option to ldapmodify
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.6
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
When using ldapmodify to replay a testing workload it would be useful to be
able to specify a request rate, instead of just performing multiple operations
in immediate succession. As a simpler alternative, just being able to specify a
time interval between operations would be helpful.
As an even greater future enhancement, it would be nice to have an option to
replay an accesslog.ldif directly, using its embedded timestamps to control the
time interval between operations. Currently this isn't feasible since reqstart
timestamps only have 1-second granularity, the fraction part is a linear
counter and not a microsecond value. The reqStart fraction would need to be
extended to 9 decimal places with full nanosecond resolution in order to be
usable as actual fractional time. We already know that microsecond resolution
is insufficient to avoid frequent collisions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10085
Issue ID: 10085
Summary: test029 can't pass with SLAPD_USE_SASL is set
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: ---
Running make test with SLAPD_USE_SASL set will fail test029. There is even a
comment there that we can't support that functionality as-is when SASL binds
are configured. We should probably remove that part of the test or skip it
unconditionally for now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9667
Issue ID: 9667
Summary: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
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: ---
Need to document any upgrade information for going from 2.6 to 2.7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10265
Issue ID: 10265
Summary: Make it possible to change olcBkLloadListen at runtime
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, olcBkLloadListen changes only take effect on lloadd startup:
- an added olcBkLloadListen should come online at the end of the modify
operation
- at the end of the modify operation a removed olcBkLloadListen will stop
listening on the sockets associated with it, clients that connected over these
are marked CLOSING
- to facilitate replacing a value where URIs resolved sockets overlap,
olcBkLloadListen should become a MAY in olcBkLloadConfig objectclass
Lloadd's startup was modelled upon slapd's, but the requirements have changed
considerably when it was turned into a module. Sockets are acquired at module
configuration time, which is much later than standalone/slapd's own startup and
so the way the URLs are handled also needs to be reworked. This will resolve
other related issues.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.