openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20966 discussions

Re: (ITS#6573) schema errors
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 06 Jun '10

06 Jun '10

On Jun 6, 2010, at 8:27 PM, peychart(a)mail.pf wrote: > Full_Name: Philippe EYCHART > Version: last > OS: linux > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (203.185.181.157) >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > 1/- It seems there is one schema definition error : the "street" = attribute is > defined twice in the "domain" objectClass (cosine.schema) ... > So, the LDAP database repeat this error ; see: ldapsearch -x -b = "cn=3Dsubschema" > -s base objectclasses As far as the old RFC 1274 version of 'domain', cosine.schema is = correct. (It's not an error to list attributes multiple times in schema = descriptions. There's a number of multiple listings found in RFC = specifications of object classes.) =20 Of course, all of cosine.schema should be replaced with a new file = derived directly from RFC 4524 with non-conflicting deprecated stuff at = the end of the file or moved to cosine-old.schema file. >=20 > 2/- the attribute "internationaliSDNNumber" is defined with a "i" for = "iSDN" but > with a "I" in the "domain" objectClass definition ... (so, a compare = with no > sensitive case option must be done to find it ...) Names are case insensitive. >=20 > (cf.: <http://home.gna.org/ldapcppei/Frontends/Howto-5.fr.html#S5>) > Regards, > Philippe EYCHART >=20

1 0

(ITS#6573) schema errors
by peychart＠mail.pf 06 Jun '10

06 Jun '10

Full_Name: Philippe EYCHART Version: last OS: linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (203.185.181.157) Hi, 1/- It seems there is one schema definition error : the "street" attribute is defined twice in the "domain" objectClass (cosine.schema) ... So, the LDAP database repeat this error ; see: ldapsearch -x -b "cn=subschema" -s base objectclasses 2/- the attribute "internationaliSDNNumber" is defined with a "i" for "iSDN" but with a "I" in the "domain" objectClass definition ... (so, a compare with no sensitive case option must be done to find it ...) (cf.: <http://home.gna.org/ldapcppei/Frontends/Howto-5.fr.html#S5>) Regards, Philippe EYCHART

1 0

(ITS#6572) slapd crash caused by refint's cn=config modification
by daniel＠pluta.biz 06 Jun '10

06 Jun '10

Full_Name: Daniel Pluta Version: 2.4.21 OS: Lnx URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (2001:470:9feb:ff02:6834:fd61:37f:67da) Hi, after a silly typo (removed the "," rdn-separator character) in refint's cn=config settings while modifying "olcRefintNothing" attribute the attribute contained the following escaped value: olcRefintNothing: cn=refintcn\3Dconfig Using ldapmodify with cn=config to correct this value back into e.g. "cn=refint,cn=config" caused slapd to crash. Re-starting slapd (recovering db files...) worked fine but the value of course is still the "ugly" one above. Trying to correct (using ldapmodify) this value once more caused slapd to crash again. Cheers Daniel

1 0

Re: (ITS#6556) test031 core dumps after applying first filter
by dieter＠dkluenter.de 06 Jun '10

06 Jun '10

Hi, I have run slapd in valgrind now, which produced following error: ==15353== 1 errors in context 1 of 5: ==15353== Invalid write of size 4 ==15353== at 0x80E64B5: slap_sl_free (sl_malloc.c:492) ==15353== by 0x80A0EEA: ch_free (ch_malloc.c:137) ==15353== by 0x80E3DC9: mra_free (mra.c:43) ==15353== by 0x80855B0: filter_free_x (filter.c:556) ==15353== by 0x80836CD: do_search (search.c:230) ==15353== by 0x8080588: connection_operation (connection.c:1109) ==15353== by 0x403B376: ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (tpool.c:685) ==15353== by 0x43046E4: start_thread (in /lib/libpthread-2.10.1.so) ==15353== by 0x43045FF: ??? (in /lib/libpthread-2.10.1.so) ==15353== Address 0x843692b1 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd Full valgrind log can be found at http://pastebin.de/6914 -Dieter

1 0

(ITS#6571) rebind-as-user only works on first connection attempt
by maci＠satgnu.net 04 Jun '10

04 Jun '10

Full_Name: Marcel Wysocki Version: 2.4.22 OS: Solaris/Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (88.79.126.162) Hello, i have the same problem as described here: http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200712/msg00283.html here are some logs: @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.4.22 (Jun 4 2010 11:56:46) $ slapd starting Initial connection: ########################## conn=1000 fd=11 ACCEPT from IP=127.0.0.1:45654 (IP=0.0.0.0:389) conn=1000 op=0 BIND dn="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" method=128 conn=1000 op=0 BIND dn="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" mech=SIMPLE ssf=0 conn=1000 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 text= ########################## First ldapsearch: ########################## conn=1000 op=2 SRCH base="ou=users,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" scope=1 deref=3 filter="(mobile=491721000227)" conn=1000 op=2 SRCH attr=objectclass conn=1000 op=2 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 nentries=1 text= ########################## backend server has been restarted, sencond ldapsearch: ########################## conn=1000 op=3 SRCH base="ou=users,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" scope=1 deref=3 filter="(mobile=491721000227)" conn=1000 op=3 SRCH attr=objectclass conn=1000 op=3 ldap_back_retry: retrying URI="ldap://10.2.163.13:389" DN="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" conn=1000 op=3 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 nentries=1 text= ########################## backend server has been stopped, third ldapsearch, fails as it should: ########################## conn=1000 op=4 SRCH base="ou=users,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" scope=1 deref=3 filter="(mobile=491721000227)" conn=1000 op=4 SRCH attr=objectclass conn=1000 op=4 ldap_back_retry: retrying URI="ldap://10.2.163.13:389" DN="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" conn=1000 op=4 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=52 nentries=0 text= ########################## backend server has been restarted, fourth ldapsearch, rebind fails: ########################## conn=1000 op=5 SRCH base="ou=users,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" scope=1 deref=3 filter="(mobile=491721000227)" conn=1000 op=5 SRCH attr=objectclass conn=1000 op=5 ldap_back_dobind_int: DN="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" without creds, binding anonymously conn=1000 op=5 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 nentries=0 text= ########################## following the configuration for back-ldap: database ldap suffix "o=bazbaz" uri ldap://10.2.163.13:389 rootdn "cn=PEX,o=bazbaz" rootpw secret idle-timeout 301 rebind-as-user yes single-conn yes chase-referrals no acl-bind bindmethod=simple binddn="uid=FOOO,ou=applications,ou=admin,ou=BAR,c=de,o=bazbaz" credentials=supersecret

1 0

Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Michael Str=F6der wrote: > Kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: >> However, one issue I have with this code is that highly dependent =3D >> behaviors which, aside from not be standardized, aren't even = specified =3D >> in RFCs. For instance, there is no RFC describing dnsHostName or =3D >> ldapServiceName or any specification detailing how GSS-SPNEGO is to = be =3D >> used in LDAP. Without a formal specification (e.g., RFC), I oppose =3D= >> release of this code. That is, it should stay HEAD only until such = time =3D >> that a formal specification (e.g., RFC) is available. >=20 > Kurt, I somewhat can understand your concerns. > But as a general answer to your comment above: There is already a lot = of code > in OpenLDAP for which no RFC or at least an I-D was specified but = which serves > a certain use-case. Strictly (following your statement above) speaking = one > would have to hunk out all the stuff only specified in I-Ds. An I-D would be a start. I would think there's a number of interesting = security considerations that would bubble up if someone would ever have = taken the time to submit a specification regarding use of SPNEGO in SASL = and in application protocols such as LDAP to an open standards = organization such as the IETF. > So I don't see > the strong need to be overly strict here. It's long been a stated goal of the project to promote interoperability = through open standards. This work seems more to come from a community = whose stated goal is to behave like one particular vendor. I'm not a = fan of chasing any particular vendor. > Quality of certain code is another story. But I cannot comment on = this. How can one independently verify the code acts as intended without a = specification of the intended behavior? (Saying it should act like = some particular commercial product, is not a specification.) -- Kurt >=20 > Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
by michael＠stroeder.com 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > However, one issue I have with this code is that highly dependent = > behaviors which, aside from not be standardized, aren't even specified = > in RFCs. For instance, there is no RFC describing dnsHostName or = > ldapServiceName or any specification detailing how GSS-SPNEGO is to be = > used in LDAP. Without a formal specification (e.g., RFC), I oppose = > release of this code. That is, it should stay HEAD only until such time = > that a formal specification (e.g., RFC) is available. Kurt, I somewhat can understand your concerns. But as a general answer to your comment above: There is already a lot of code in OpenLDAP for which no RFC or at least an I-D was specified but which serves a certain use-case. Strictly (following your statement above) speaking one would have to hunk out all the stuff only specified in I-Ds. So I don't see the strong need to be overly strict here. Quality of certain code is another story. But I cannot comment on this. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

On Jun 2, 2010, at 4:28 AM, gcarter(a)likewise.com wrote: >=20 > Is it just the public ldap_bind_gssapi_s() signature that you > have an issue with? If, as you suggest, we give you a patch > that adds an LDAP_AUTH_GSSAPI flag to ldap_bind_s() but keep > the same (existing) ldap_bind_gssapi_s() internals, would that > be acceptable? There's already LDAP_AUTH_NEGOTIATE which does this. So technically, = the API is already exposed via ldap_bind_s. But I strongly oppose the introduction of abuse of the LDAP_AUTH_* = enumeration of LDAP authentication methods and ldap_bind_s(). This = enumeration and method are intended to have a one-to-one relationship = with the wire protocol. There is no "negotiate" LDAP authentication = mechanism. If this code is going to pursued (see my other comments), I think it = should be treated as a high level negotiation wrapper similar to = ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s(). If at all possible, it should be = integrated into ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s() (which can handle = non-interactive cases as well). However, I could (*) see it desirable = for it to be separately accessible as well, so = ldap_sasl_gss_spnego_bind_s() would be better. (* it might be easier to = see this if a proponent of this feature would implement it in = ldapwhoami(1) and slapd(8).) However, I still have objections to releasing code which implements = undocumented protocol features. Someone really needs to specify the the = SASL GSS-SPNEGO mechanism and how its used in LDAP. -- Kurt=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > cheers, jerry > - --=20 > Director of Engineering http://www.likewise.com/ > Likewise-CIFS http://www.likewiseopen.org/ > "What man is a man who does not make the world better?" --Balian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 6/2/10 12:10 AM, Scott Salley wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@symas.com] >> Sent: Tue 6/1/2010 6:07 PM >> To: Scott Salley >> Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org >> Subject: Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose = ldap_gssadpi_bind_s >>=20 >> ssalley(a)likewise.com wrote: >>> Full_Name: Scott Salley >>> Version: HEAD >>> OS: Linux >>> URL: >> = http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def= ine-have-gssapi.patch >>> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Note that a similar issue/contribution was submitted in 2008 >> (Contrib/5369) and >>> appears to have been 'lost'. >>=20 >>> The patch >> = http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def= ine-have-gssapi.patch >>> makes it possible to use the GSSAPI support in OpenLDAP by: >>>=20 >>> 1. Defining --with-gssapi in configure which >>> a. Checks for appropriate header files >>> b. Checks for the appropriate library >>> c. Defines HAVE_GSSAPI to 1 in everything is in order >>>=20 >>> 2. Exposing ldap_gssapi_bind_s in ldap.h >>=20 >> I am still disinclined to publish any of this. The standard mechanism = for >> using GSSAPI in LDAP is via SASL. I see no benefit to propagating = more >> non-standard one-off ldap_XXX_bind flavors. It's a poor design = approach >> and it >> increases our support workload for no appreciable gain. It increases >> application developer's workload as well, if they have to test for = the >> existence of multiple flavors of ldap_XXX_bind and code for them each >> separately in their apps. >>=20 >> If you really want to have "direct" access to other authentication >> mechanisms, >> the right way to do this is by adding new LDAP_AUTH_xxx definitions = that can >> be muxed out from a single ldap_bind API. Of course, by the time = you've >> implemented option parsing so that generic client code can be = configured >> with >> arbitrary Bind mechanisms, you would have re-implemented SASL. >>=20 >> -- >> -- Howard Chu >> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com >> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ >> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >=20 > iD8DBQFMBj/7IR7qMdg1EfYRAjmcAKC1MyKit8TKa1W96cZ2Uh3Cdm/EMACeJtbu > 9/F8j8UQJ5C3X0sW5LytRq8=3D > =3DtkYo > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >=20 >=20

1 0

Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Lastly, I note that it might be good for proponent of this feature to at = least offer extensions to ldapwhoami(1) and other command line tools. = Aside from the educational value that would provide to developers in how = this feature would be used along side other libldap features (such as = ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s), it would provide a means to test the = code. Of course, without support in OpenLDAP's slapd(8), testing would = be cumbersome for many. -- Kurt On Jun 1, 2010, at 6:08 PM, hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > ssalley(a)likewise.com wrote: >> Full_Name: Scott Salley >> Version: HEAD >> OS: Linux >> URL: = http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def= ine-have-gssapi.patch >> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234) >>=20 >>=20 >> Note that a similar issue/contribution was submitted in 2008 = (Contrib/5369) and >> appears to have been 'lost'. >=20 >> The patch = http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def= ine-have-gssapi.patch >> makes it possible to use the GSSAPI support in OpenLDAP by: >>=20 >> 1. Defining --with-gssapi in configure which >> a. Checks for appropriate header files >> b. Checks for the appropriate library >> c. Defines HAVE_GSSAPI to 1 in everything is in order >>=20 >> 2. Exposing ldap_gssapi_bind_s in ldap.h >=20 > I am still disinclined to publish any of this. The standard mechanism = for=20 > using GSSAPI in LDAP is via SASL. I see no benefit to propagating more=20= > non-standard one-off ldap_XXX_bind flavors. It's a poor design = approach and it=20 > increases our support workload for no appreciable gain. It increases=20= > application developer's workload as well, if they have to test for the=20= > existence of multiple flavors of ldap_XXX_bind and code for them each=20= > separately in their apps. >=20 > If you really want to have "direct" access to other authentication = mechanisms,=20 > the right way to do this is by adding new LDAP_AUTH_xxx definitions = that can=20 > be muxed out from a single ldap_bind API. Of course, by the time = you've=20 > implemented option parsing so that generic client code can be = configured with=20 > arbitrary Bind mechanisms, you would have re-implemented SASL. >=20 > --=20 > -- Howard Chu > CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ > Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ >=20 >=20

1 0

Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

In looking at the code a bit more closely, one could argue that what = this code actually provides is an alternative to = ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s() which, instead of negotiating any = mechanism, is designed to negotiate GSS API mechanisms via GSS-SPNEGO. = In that light, maybe it should be integrated into = ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s() or renamed to be more clear to be a = higher level negotiation routine, maybe ldap_sasl_gss_spnego_bind_s(). However, one issue I have with this code is that highly dependent = behaviors which, aside from not be standardized, aren't even specified = in RFCs. For instance, there is no RFC describing dnsHostName or = ldapServiceName or any specification detailing how GSS-SPNEGO is to be = used in LDAP. Without a formal specification (e.g., RFC), I oppose = release of this code. That is, it should stay HEAD only until such time = that a formal specification (e.g., RFC) is available. I would assume GSS-SPNEGO is usable without these attributes. It seems = odd to me that this code requires them. I note that use of the SASL GSS-SPNEGO in LDAP has actually be = discouraged in IETF circles because SASL "GSS-SPNEGO" is itself not well = specified and multiple levels of negotiation leads to downgrade attacks. = The general consensus in the IETF seems that application protocol = clients (including LDAP clients) should use SASL mechanism negotiation = to select mechanisms, whether GSS API based mechanisms or non GSS API = based mechanisms. There is a general move on foot that all new SASL = mechanisms be described as GSS API mechanisms, ala SCRAM. -- Kurt=

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs