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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9367
Issue ID: 9367
Summary: back-mdb: encryption support
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to add encryption support to the back-mdb backend, depends on issue#9364
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9796
Issue ID: 9796
Summary: Deprecate GnuTLS support
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.1
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Support for GnuTLS was added specifically for the Debian (and thus Ubuntu) due
to the license objections at the time that the Debian project had for the
OpenSSL license.
Since that time, Debian has reclassified OpenSSL as a core library and the
OpenSSL project has resolved the original complaint by licensing OpenSSL 3 and
later under the Apache License v2.
Thus there is no longer a reason to maintain support for GnuTLS and given the
long standing concerns over the security and quality of the GnuTLS bridge in
addition to the extra cost of maintaining that code, it should be marked as
deprecated and removed in a future release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10338
Issue ID: 10338
Summary: constraint overlay rejects empty modifications
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
If configured even with no rules, a modification with a NULL op->orm_modlist is
rejected, despite not being able to break any constraints, e.g.:
dn: cn=example
changetype: modify
# no modifications attached
This should at least be configurable.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9493
Issue ID: 9493
Summary: slapo-accesslog handling of deletion of multi-valued
configuration attributes removes wrong value from list
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.57
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: svella(a)technologist.com
Target Milestone: ---
I observed this in the debugger while working on a small feature addition to
slapo-accesslog.
log_cf_gen(), when handling the initial configuration of oldAccessLogOldAttr
(accesslog.c:989), linked list li_oldattrs is being built by inserting each
value in order at the head of the list, resulting in the list being in reverse
order. But when handling LDAP_MOD_DELETE of same attribute (accesslog.c:989),
it is using the index of the removed value (valx) to find and removed the entry
in the linked list, but it's counting from the head of li_oldattrs and not the
tail, resulting in the wrong item being removed from the list unless counting
from the head or the tail happens find the same item.
(Line numbers refer to commit 6c469f07935e351e349bf38fc223dab704c51a76)
Handling of oldAccessLogBase appears to have the same problem, and a cursory
glance through the source of other overlays reveals a similar pattern, and I'm
guessing the same problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9556
Issue ID: 9556
Summary: slapd-config should return invalidAttributeSyntax if
parsing schema description fails
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.4
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm currently testing error handling and interacting with LDAP clients (e.g. my
web2ldap).
Sending an invalid attribute type description results in an error (as expected)
returned by slapd-config:
RESULT tag=103 err=80 qtime=0.000032 etime=0.001271 text=olcAttributeTypes:
Unexpected token before SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 )
But result code other(80) seems not very useful. It's too unspecific to decide
on specific error handling.
It would be much more useful if slapd-config returns invalidAttributeSyntax(21)
in this case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959
Issue ID: 9959
Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor
for identification
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: ---
ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is
impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're
at it, might also expose the current bound identity there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10266
Issue ID: 10266
Summary: Adopt broader RFC4511 NoD interpretation on lloadd's
client side
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: ---
Server side, lloadd has long implemented a broad interpretation of NoD
unsolicited response handling: when the message is issued, no new requests are
accepted on the session however the client and server are both free to keep the
session open if there are any operations that have not resolved yet. The server
is still expected to close the connection as soon as no operations are still
pending.
This seems to interoperate with known clients. Those that want to will close
the session immediately, unaware of this possibility, those that also want to
interpret RFC 4511 this way can choose to wait for existing operations to
resolve.
This ticket is to track the lloadd's implementation of the client side of this
- when receiving a NoD message, we don't close the connection
immediately+unconditionally either but are willing to wait.
Related functionality:
- if connection was a bind connection processing a multi-stage SASL bind, the
bind should fail if/when the client attempts to progress it
- clients assigned to this connection through coherence at least 'connection'
are also marked closing
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9640
Issue ID: 9640
Summary: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm using LDAP write operations with MOD_INCREMENT with pre-read-control for
uidNumber/gidNumber generation.
I'd like to limit write access to an Integer attribute "nextID" to
MOD_INCREMENT, ideally even restricting the de-/increment value.
(Uniqueness is achieved with slapo-unique anyway but still I'd like to avoid
users messing with this attribute).
IMHO the ideal solution would be a new privilege "i".
Example for limiting write access to increment by one and grant read access for
using read control:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=1
by group=... =ri
Example for decrementing by two without read:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=-2
by group=... =i
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909
Issue ID: 9909
Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
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: ---
slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is
never released on shutdown.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.