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=10306
Issue ID: 10306
Summary: epoll, kqueue etc. are not used when cross compiling
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.9
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hi(a)alyssa.is
Target Milestone: ---
OpenLDAP's build system relies on running test programs to see whether epoll or
kqueue are available, after checking the headers are available. When cross
compiling, test programs can't be run, and even if they could, they wouldn't
produce useful results because they'd be testing the build machine. Running
test programs like this isn't even a great idea for native builds, because the
package is still quite likely to end up running on a different machine than it
was built for — think about distro packages.
This means that cross-compiled OpenLDAP ends up using select, even though it
could almost certainly use epoll or kqueue.
The best thing to do for this sort of thing is to check at runtime whether the
epoll/kqueue/whatever is available, and fall back if not, but this would
probably be hard to implement in OpenLDAP. Other, easier, things that could be
done to improve the situation would be:
• Assume that epoll/kqueue are available if the headers are. It's very
unlikely nowadays that a system with the headers won't actually have the API
available.
• If the AC_RUN_IFELSE checks are staying, make sure that they're all
overridabel with configure flags or at least AC_CACHE_CHECK.
There are also uses of AC_RUN_IFELSE for pthreads, which presumably have 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=10310
Issue ID: 10310
Summary: Update pbkdf2 overlay so iterations can be
configurable
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The pbkdf2 password hashing contrib overlay has the number of iterations hard
coded at 10,000. It would be helpful to update the module to allow this to be
configurable instead, as is done with other password hashing modules.
--
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.
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.