From clem.oudot@gmail.com Thu Dec 19 14:03:18 2013 From: clem.oudot@gmail.com To: openldap-bugs@openldap.org Subject: Re: (ITS#7766) Account unlocked in slave after two modifications on a master (overlay ppolicy) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:03:17 +0000 Message-ID: <201312191403.rBJE3HN6074275@boole.openldap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7627459839500314297==" --===============7627459839500314297== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --001a11c36ad2fcb4a204ede39c11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2013/12/19 Christian Kratzer > Hi, > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Cl=3DE9ment OUDOT wrote: > > >> I sent it by mail but I think it is too big and queued. So here is all >> >> configuration and test result: >> >> http://pastebin.com/earKiHnH >> > > I have not worked trhough all your examples and configs yet as I am > travelling at the moment but things seem quite clear to me. > > > The password lock from you slaves never arrives on your master as you > have not configured referrals or any other kind of replication of state > from your slave to your master. > > That means the data on the masters and the slaves is inconsistent. > > As syncrepl as you use it always replaces the entire entry any changes > from the master will complelete overrite anything on the slaves. > > There is no merging of data in syncrepl. > If you take time to read all I sent, you will see that a first modification on the master DO NOT modifiy ppolicy attributes on the slave, the second modification do. Whatever you think, there is a bug here. If you read with caution the ppolicy draft, you will see that pwdAccountLockedTime and some other attributes SHOULD NOT be replicated on read-only replicas. > > This is working as designed and is not a bug by my understanding. > > We disagree a lot on this point. > You have at least following two options from what I see: > > 1. configure referrals and chaining so password locks etc... on the slav=3D e > get forwarded to the masters and replicated back to the slave. > > This means that you need to configure lcPPolicyForwardUpdates: TRUE > and chaining on your slave. > I tested it with success (almost, see ITS#7767 and ITS#7768) > > 2. configure multimaster replication so password locks get replicated > to your master. > > I did not test if the bug occurs in multimaster, but I think not. > You should close this ITS and we can discuss anything further on the > regular mailing lists. > > As said above, I am pretty sure there is a bug. Maybe an OpenLDAP developer should give its opinion on this ITS. Cl=3DE9ment. --001a11c36ad2fcb4a204ede39c11 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



2013/12/19 Christian Kratzer <ck(a)cksoft.de>
Hi,

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Cl=3DE9ment OUDOT wrote:
<snipp/>
I sent it by mail but I think it is too big and queued. So here is all

configuration and test result:

http://pastebi= n.=3D com/earKiHnH

I have not worked trhough all your examples and configs yet as I am
travelling at the moment but things seem quite clear to me.
=3DA0

The password lock from you slaves never arrives on your master as you
have not configured referrals or any other kind of replication of state
from your slave to your master.

That means the data on the masters and the slaves is inconsistent.

As syncrepl as you use it always replaces the entire entry any changes
from the master will complelete overrite anything on the slaves.

There is no merging of data in syncrepl.



<=3D /div>
If you take time to read all I sent, you will see that a first mo=3D dification on the master DO NOT modifiy ppolicy attributes on the slave, th=3D e second modification do. Whatever you think, there is a bug here.



If you read with caution the ppolicy draf=3D t, you will see that pwdAccountLockedTime and some other attributes SHOULD =3D NOT be replicated on read-only replicas.

=3DA0

This is working as designed and is not a bug by my understanding.



We disagree a lot on this point.

=3DA0
You have at least following two options from what I see:

1. =3DA0configure referrals and chaining so password locks etc... on the slav= =3D e
=3DA0 =3DA0 get forwarded to the masters and replicated back to the slave.

=3DA0 =3DA0 This means that you need to configure lcPPolicyForwardUpdates: TR= UE=3D
=3DA0 =3DA0 and chaining on your slave.


I tested it with success (almost, see ITS#7767 and ITS#7768)
=3DA0

2. =3DA0configure multimaster replication so password locks get replicated =3DA0 =3DA0 to your master.



I did not test if the bug occurs i=3D n multimaster, but I think not.

=3DA0
You should close this ITS and we can discuss anything further on the
regular mailing lists.

<= /d=3D iv>




As said above, I am pretty =3D sure there is a bug. Maybe an OpenLDAP developer should give its opinion on=3D this ITS.


Cl=3DE9ment.
--001a11c36ad2fcb4a204ede39c11-- --===============7627459839500314297==--