openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

20960 discussions

Re: (ITS#4860) Sets' enhancement
by raphael.ouazana＠linagora.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Le Lun 12 mars 2007 06:37, Pierangelo Masarati a écrit : > I don't see so much similarity: set_chase() is intended to use the > gatherer to fetch objects and extract a value from them, including > "closure" (recursion). Sublevel does not require fetching, and takes a > negative digit as extra argument, rather than an attribute type, so > you'd need to add an outer test before calling set_chase() anyway, > extend the interface of set_chase() to allow an AttributeDescription and > an integer, and so on, while you don't need any callback capability to > fetch an object or expand values or so. I'd keep it simple as it is now. OK. You'll find a new version here: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/raphael-ouazana-070313.patch It takes care of your notices. Regards, Raphael Ouazana.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by vargok＠yahoo.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

>----- Original Message ---- >From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> >To: vargok(a)yahoo.com >Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org >Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:52:04 PM >Subject: Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es) > > >> These address the use of Binary-valued attributes (#3113, #3386): >> >> For example, inetOrgPerson.userCertificate is usually transferred with the >> ";binary" directive. ";binary" is not handled by OpenLDAP/Back-SQL. > >Well, the solution you propose is not correct, since you are altering >schema data, which is supposed to be read-only. In any case, the point is: Yeah; I think the actual submission found the ";binary" and reset the reference to it, not actually doing anything to it. >- if we decide that back-sql should ignore tags, then the solution >consists in using the canonical name of the underlying AttributeType >when looking up data; > >- however, this would destroy the possibility to use different storages >for differently encoded data; for example, a column for "cn;lang-en" and >a column for "cn;lang-jp". I don't know how many users would prefer one >solution over another, but in any case either we find a solution that >preserves both capabilities or we choose one. I'd vote in favor of >ignoring ";binary" since it's obsolete and related to transport only, >but in favor of honoring language tags. Sounds great to me. I just want support for ";binary" both on storage and retrieval to be supported. I'll accept that it's obsolete -- I'll also put forth that a lot of things still use it (e.g. Lotus Domino v6). >> There remains an issue with selecting attributes using, e.g., >> "userCertificate;binary" -- nothing is returned. Someone with a better >> understanding of the attribute-processing method would be much more effective in >> terms of finding the correct place to remove the ";binary" from the >> "attribute-name." (i.e. "userCertificate;binary" is NOT the attribute-name; >> "userCertificate" is the attribute-name, ";binary" is a transport directive (see >> #3113). > >In fact, "userCertificate;binary" is the attribute description. The >attribute name is in ad_type->sat_cname. And, in fact, none of what I did appears to have been sufficient. I'm still looking at why selecting "userCertificate;binary" as part of an ldapsearch attribute-list doesn't pull the data. "userCertificate" does. The issue appears to be related to the ad_inlist verification on the search-supplied attribute -- "userCertificate;binary" doesn't resolve. If you know where I can look to figure this out, that would help. I've been through some areas and not found exactly where just yet. Thanks for your assistance. Kevin Vargo ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

1 0

Re: (ITS#4869) config creates base64 encoded rootdn
by hyc＠symas.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

dieter(a)dkluenter.de wrote: > Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> writes: > >> What is the original rootdn? >> > cn=admin,o=avci,c=de > > -Dieter > I don't see anything like that here. You'll probably have to post your slapd.conf. Have you checked for extraneous white space in the original rootdn config? -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#4869) config creates base64 encoded rootdn
by dieter＠dkluenter.de 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> writes: > What is the original rootdn? > cn=admin,o=avci,c=de -Dieter -- Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung http://www.dkluenter.de GPG Key ID:8EF7B6C6

1 0

(ITS#4872) Non-portable comparison in wait4msg() (result.c) causes infinite loop
by carsten.agger＠tietoenator.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Full_Name: Carsten Agger Version: 2.3.20 OS: OSE URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (194.237.142.21) On our architecture (OSE running on an AXE processor), time_t is an unsigned int. This means that this code, as found in the wait4msg function in libraries/libldap/result.c, will break: > > if ( rc == LDAP_MSG_X_KEEP_LOOKING && tvp != NULL ) { > tmp_time = time( NULL ); > tv0.tv_sec -= ( tmp_time - start_time ); > if ( tv0.tv_sec <= 0 ) { > rc = 0; /* timed out */ > ld->ld_errno = LDAP_TIMEOUT; > break; > } > tv.tv_sec = tv0.tv_sec; > ... > } Why? Because if (start_time > tmp_time), the condition ( tv0.tv_sec <= 0 ) will never evaluate to TRUE, and the break will never be executed - yielding an infinite loop. Solution: rewrite in a portable way, e.g. (as suggested by Pierangelo Masarati on the bugs mailing list) by testing if the value of tv_sec would be negative after subtracting ( tmp_time - start_time ) before assigning it.

1 0

Bug causing infinite loop in result.c
by Carsten.Agger＠tietoenator.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

We have found a bug in libraries/libldap/result.c which may cause an infinite loop in some situations. The error is this, in the function wait4msg(): if ( rc == LDAP_MSG_X_KEEP_LOOKING && tvp != NULL ) { tmp_time = time( NULL ); tv0.tv_sec -= ( tmp_time - start_time ); if ( tv0.tv_sec <= 0 ) { rc = 0; /* timed out */ ld->ld_errno = LDAP_TIMEOUT; break; } tv.tv_sec = tv0.tv_sec; ... } The problem is this: The check ( tv0.tv_sec <= 0 ) is always true, since tv_sec (on our system, at least) is an unsigned int. The problem is fixed by casting it to int: if ( (int) tv0.tv_sec <= 0 ) { ... } however this might not be the most suitable way to fix it. best regards, Carsten Agger Software Consultant, TietoEnator A/S, Denmark http://www.tietoenator.dk

2 2

(ITS#4871) index directive & slapd.conf(5)
by quanah＠stanford.edu 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Full_Name: Quanah Gibson-Mount Version: 2.3/2.4/HEAD OS: NA URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (171.66.155.86) The slapd.conf(5) man page talks about the various ways in which indices can be tuned, such as index_substr_if_maxlen, but it does not actually mention the index directive. It may be worthwhile to have text like [b]index[/b] See the man page for the specific backend you are using for more information about the index directive {ex: slapd-bdb(5)} so that users can more easily find that information (and the necessity to run slapindex on bdb, for example) etc.

1 0

(ITS#4870) superfluous int declarations in bconfig.c
by bret.lambert＠gmail.com 13 Mar '07

13 Mar '07

Full_Name: Bret Lambert Version: HEAD OS: URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/bret-lambert-070312.patch Submission from: (NULL) (70.179.123.124) Superfluous redeclarations of 'int i' in bconfig.c Found via lint(1) on OpenBSD.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by ando＠sys-net.it 12 Mar '07

12 Mar '07

vargok(a)yahoo.com wrote: > These address the use of Binary-valued attributes (#3113, #3386): The proposed patches have been applied (with changes) to HEAD code (you should be able to easily generate the diffs between HEAD and re23 code); please test. In detail, please check the solution for the ";binary" issue. If you report the behavior as satisfactory, backporting to re23 could be an option, since the fix should be well isolated, and it configures as borderline between new feature and bug fix. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ------------------------------------------ Office: +39.02.23998309 Mobile: +39.333.4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by ando＠sys-net.it 12 Mar '07

12 Mar '07

Few preliminary comments follow. vargok(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Version: 2.3.32 You should rather patch HEAD code instead of released, and even not the latest. However, given the development rate of back-sql (~0), it shouldn't really matter > These address the use of Binary-valued attributes (#3113, #3386): > > For example, inetOrgPerson.userCertificate is usually transferred with the > ";binary" directive. ";binary" is not handled by OpenLDAP/Back-SQL. Well, the solution you propose is not correct, since you are altering schema data, which is supposed to be read-only. In any case, the point is: - if we decide that back-sql should ignore tags, then the solution consists in using the canonical name of the underlying AttributeType when looking up data; - however, this would destroy the possibility to use different storages for differently encoded data; for example, a column for "cn;lang-en" and a column for "cn;lang-jp". I don't know how many users would prefer one solution over another, but in any case either we find a solution that preserves both capabilities or we choose one. I'd vote in favor of ignoring ";binary" since it's obsolete and related to transport only, but in favor of honoring language tags. > As well, > the data itself, when stored in the database is not properly read out -- all > data is read as SQL_C_CHAR data. This supports SQL_C_BINARY-based data. This is just fine. > There remains an issue with selecting attributes using, e.g., > "userCertificate;binary" -- nothing is returned. Someone with a better > understanding of the attribute-processing method would be much more effective in > terms of finding the correct place to remove the ";binary" from the > "attribute-name." (i.e. "userCertificate;binary" is NOT the attribute-name; > "userCertificate" is the attribute-name, ";binary" is a transport directive (see > #3113). In fact, "userCertificate;binary" is the attribute description. The attribute name is in ad_type->sat_cname. > Additionally, I included to the patch to remove the "assert(0)" in Back-SQL's > verification that a search filter and ldap-data don't mis-match on suffix. Fine, but already fixed. > Tags: OpenLDAP, Back-SQL, MySQL, userCertificate, Binary Attributes, Client > Certificates > > > (1) > ./servers/slapd/back-sql/search.c.patch > Addressed ITS#4856 -- I think you already fixed this > > (2) > ./servers/slapd/back-sql/back-sql.h.patch > ./servers/slapd/back-sql/entry-id.c.patch > ./servers/slapd/back-sql/sql-wrap.c.patch > Address ITS#3113, ITS#3386 > Support for binary attribute values > > (3) > ./servers/slapd/back-sql/schema-map.c.patch > Addresses issue with accessing attributes that have been provided with > ";binary" directive > > note that I have no doubts whatso ever that there are many better ways to do > (3). You made an extensive use of C++ style comments, which are non portable. Obviously you didn't read the contribution guidelines. I'm testing (and improving) it. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ------------------------------------------ Office: +39.02.23998309 Mobile: +39.333.4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ------------------------------------------

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