openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21003 discussions

(ITS#7844) LMDB Delete Cursor inconsistencies
by armon.dadgar＠gmail.com 26 Apr '14

26 Apr '14

Full_Name: Armon Dadgar Version: OS: URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (50.200.38.131) When using a transaction across multiple named tables, it seems that if I am iterating and deleting I can trigger a condition that causes some rows to be missed by the cursor. There is a test case here that can reproduce it: https://gist.github.com/armon/11338944 You can run it using: go run test.go mdb_table.go Here is one of my test runs: https://gist.github.com/armon/11338967 In that test, I would expect all 128 entries to be deleted, but only 43 are before the cursor stops returning new rows.

1 0

(ITS#7843) ldap_set_option on LDAP not working
by korylprince＠gmail.com 25 Apr '14

25 Apr '14

Full_Name: Kory Prince Version: 2.4.39 OS: Linux (Arch/Ubuntu) URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (71.49.164.94) Consider the following code: #include <stdio.h> #include <ldap.h> void main() { LDAP *ld; int status = ldap_initialize(&ld, "ldaps://server:636"); if (status == LDAP_SUCCESS) { printf("initialize success\n"); } status = ldap_set_option(NULL, LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_CACERTFILE, "/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt"); status = ldap_simple_bind_s(ld, "bindDN", "pass"); if (status == LDAP_SUCCESS) { printf("bind success\n"); } else { printf("%s\n", ldap_err2string(status)); } } This works as expected. However changing the set_option line to status = ldap_set_option(ld, LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_CACERTFILE, "/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt"); (setting the option on the LDAP) causes the bind to fail. Using python-ldap gives me a bit more info: error:14090086:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE:certificate verify failed (unable to get local issuer certificate) I have compiled libldap 2.4.39 on Arch and Ubuntu and am getting the same result. Interestingly enough, the version that comes packaged on Ubuntu 12.04 (2.4.28) works fine, but compiling that version myself gives the same error.

1 0

(ITS#7842) mdb readers/writer exclusion protocol, as implemented, is racy.
by rsbx＠acm.org 22 Apr '14

22 Apr '14

Full_Name: Raymond S Brand Version: mdb.master OS: linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (107.145.137.13) [I would have uploaded this to the ftp.openldap.org but there was no space.] As implemented, the mdb readers/writer exclusion protocol has a race condition that could result in a writer reclaiming and over-writing pages still in use by a reader. Pseudo code of the snapshot locking protocols of reader and writer transactions. The labeled sections, for the purposes of this analysis, can be assumed to execute atomically. READER ====== *R1* t0 = meta[0].txid; t1 = meta[1].txid if (t1 > t0) t0 = t1 *R2* readers[me].txid = t0 *R3* snapshot_root = meta[t0&1].snapshot *R4* /* lookup data */ *R5* readers[me].txid = -1 // Release snapshot WRITER ====== *W1* lock(writer, EXCLUSIVE) curr_txid = meta[0].txid if (meta[1].txid > curr_txid) curr_txid = meta[1].txid *W2* oldest = curr_txid for (i=0; i<reader_slots; i++) t = readers[i].txid if (t != -1 && t < oldest) oldest = t *W3* reclaim_old_pages(oldest) /* ** Commit new transaction */ *W4* unlock(writer) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adversarial scheduling analysis: The following timeline demonstrates that a writer can reclaim pages in use by a reader. T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 R1 R2 R3 R4 W1 W2 W3 W4 * W1 W2 W3 T0 Reader has found the latest txid, Xn. T1->T4 Reader is not scheduled to run and a write transaction commits, Xn+1. T5 Reader is still not scheduled and another write transaction starts. T6 Writer finds that the oldest referenced transaction is the last committed transaction, Xn+1. T7 Reader records Xn in the reader table. T8 Reader gets the snapshot root page for transaction Xn. T9 Writer, believing that Xn+1 is the oldest reference transaction, reclaims the pages of transaction Xn. T10 Reader attempts to navigate pages of a transaction, Xn, that has been reclaimed and "Bad Things Happen". In fact, bad things will happen if an even number of write transactions commit between W4 and W1, represented by the '*', in the timeline above. The fix is to search for the highest txid in R1 and between R2 and R3. Optionally, followed by recording the txid, of the snapshot root found in R3, in the reader's reader table slot to, possibly, increase the number of reclaimable transactions. The lack of compiler and memory barriers in the implementation of the locking protocol is also of concern. Beyond the above, the code in mdb_txn_renew0() after the "/* Copy the DB info and flags */" comment appears to have a number of data races. --- libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c | 24 +++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c b/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c index e0f551e..908417c 100644 --- a/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c +++ b/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c @@ -533,11 +533,11 @@ typedef struct MDB_rxbody { * started from so we can avoid overwriting any data used in that * particular version. */ - txnid_t mrb_txnid; + volatile txnid_t mrb_txnid; /** The process ID of the process owning this reader txn. */ - MDB_PID_T mrb_pid; + volatile MDB_PID_T mrb_pid; /** The thread ID of the thread owning this txn. */ - pthread_t mrb_tid; + volatile pthread_t mrb_tid; } MDB_rxbody; /** The actual reader record, with cacheline padding. */ @@ -585,12 +585,12 @@ typedef struct MDB_txbody { * This is recorded here only for convenience; the value can always * be determined by reading the main database meta pages. */ - txnid_t mtb_txnid; + volatile txnid_t mtb_txnid; /** The number of slots that have been used in the reader table. * This always records the maximum count, it is not decremented * when readers release their slots. */ - unsigned mtb_numreaders; + volatile unsigned mtb_numreaders; } MDB_txbody; /** The actual reader table definition. */ @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ typedef struct MDB_meta { /** Any persistent environment flags. @ref mdb_env */ #define mm_flags mm_dbs[0].md_flags pgno_t mm_last_pg; /**< last used page in file */ - txnid_t mm_txnid; /**< txnid that committed this page */ + volatile txnid_t mm_txnid; /**< txnid that committed this page */ } MDB_meta; /** Buffer for a stack-allocated meta page. @@ -2303,10 +2303,12 @@ mdb_txn_renew0(MDB_txn *txn) if (txn->mt_flags & MDB_TXN_RDONLY) { if (!ti) { + /* No readers table; app responsible for locking */ meta = env->me_metas[ mdb_env_pick_meta(env) ]; txn->mt_txnid = meta->mm_txnid; txn->mt_u.reader = NULL; } else { + /* Has readers table */ MDB_reader *r = (env->me_flags & MDB_NOTLS) ? txn->mt_u.reader : pthread_getspecific(env->me_txkey); if (r) { @@ -2347,8 +2349,12 @@ mdb_txn_renew0(MDB_txn *txn) return rc; } } - txn->mt_txnid = r->mr_txnid = ti->mti_txnid; txn->mt_u.reader = r; + r->mr_txnid = ti->mti_txnid; + + /* Really need a memory barrier here */ + + txn->mt_txnid = r->mr_txnid = ti->mti_txnid; meta = env->me_metas[txn->mt_txnid & 1]; } } else { @@ -2376,10 +2382,10 @@ mdb_txn_renew0(MDB_txn *txn) } /* Copy the DB info and flags */ - memcpy(txn->mt_dbs, meta->mm_dbs, 2 * sizeof(MDB_db)); + memcpy(txn->mt_dbs, meta->mm_dbs, 2 * sizeof(MDB_db)); /* Racy */ /* Moved to here to avoid a data race in read TXNs */ - txn->mt_next_pgno = meta->mm_last_pg+1; + txn->mt_next_pgno = meta->mm_last_pg+1; /* Racy */ for (i=2; i<txn->mt_numdbs; i++) { x = env->me_dbflags[i]; -- 1.9.0.138.g2de3478

1 0

Re: (ITS#7840) bug with initial/seed syncrepl
by jephte.clain＠univ-reunion.fr 22 Apr '14

22 Apr '14

hello, FYI, I just stumbled on an old topic from 2011: --------------------------------- 8< --------------------------------- Re: cn=config replication to consumer / slave servers ________________________________ To: Christopher Strider Cook <ccook(a)pandora.com> Subject: Re: cn=config replication to consumer / slave servers From: Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:27:58 -0700 Cc: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com>, openldap-technical(a)openldap.org ________________________________ Christopher Strider Cook wrote: > So, the pointer to test059 was exactly what this issue needed and > following it has lead me to an very good working setup with one puzzling > final step. > The problem I now face is that the initial cn=config entries used to do > the first sync do not get overwritten by the data from the master. So > the install password doesn't get replaced nor do the updated retry > timeouts for olcSyncRepl, because, I'm assuming, the 'stub' entries have > newer timestamps than those on the master. > How can this be overcome from the perspective of the slave server. > Updating the entries on the master triggers the update as you would > expect. Is there a way to put the stub entries onto the slave with a > timestamp in the past so that they get overwritten during the first > sync? Or is there another way to trigger them to be updated? Use slapd -c. Read the slapd(8) manpage. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ --------------------------------- 8< --------------------------------- you always answer "use slapd -c" to this type of question, but you _never_ mention that newer entries are never overwritten by older entries. so _in this context_ this answer is useless building the consumer before the provider is not an option, also _in this context_ so the only option left is to update the master with an empty modify ldif to force update of the timestamps I personnaly use --------------------------------- 8< --------------------------------- dn: cn=config changetype: modify dn: olcDatabase={-1}frontend,cn=config changetype: modify dn: olcDatabase={0}config,cn=config changetype: modify --------------------------------- 8< --------------------------------- besides, if you do this update with a user from a different database, e.g cn=admin,dc=my,dc=tld the seed replication fails because modifiersName contains a non existing DN (at the time of the replication). I consider this a bug also. anyway, thanks for your dedicated time and effort. OpenLDAP is really a great software. I have a lot to learn yet. so please bear with me :-) best regards, 2014-04-20 11:33 GMT+04:00 Jephte Clain <jephte.clain(a)univ-reunion.fr>: > hello, > > thanks for your answer. > see my response below > > 2014-04-20 7:13 GMT+04:00 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com>: >> Jephte.Clain(a)univ-reunion.fr wrote: >>> >>> Full_Name: Jephte CLAIN >>> Version: 2.4.39 >>> OS: Debian 6 64bits >>> URL: http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ >>> Submission from: (NULL) (93.176.62.129) >>> >>> >>> I have scripts to test several replication scenarii, that setup the LDAP >>> environment then allow me to play with parameters as I see fit. >>> >>> I believe that there is a bug with the "seed replication" that allow one >>> to >>> build an exact clone of a master with minimal configuration on the slave >>> side. >> >> >> There is no bug. The syncrepl consumer is working as designed. If you want >> the consumer's entries to be automatically overwritten, create the consumer >> first so that its seed entries have older timestamps than the provider. > > ok, it works as designed. I just didn't know what the design was :-) > quoting man slapd: > Use only the rid part to force a full reload. > I guess I didn't notice that the word "full" have a different meaning > here than usual > > about creating the consumer first. you are kidding, right? in > production, the provider exists long before the consumer is set up. > the tests I do are based on the production state. > > anyway, my automated scripts "touch" the provider after setting up the > slave, so this is not a problem. > It's just that I would prefer not to have wasted time wondering why > the slave was not being updated even though I asked for a "full" > reload > > Thanks for your answer. It's now clearer in my mind. > I Cc the openldap-technical list, this can help others. > >> >>> note: the tests below require 2 VMs, or running the two slapd instances in >>> chroots, because a clone replica requires the data files to be in the same >>> path... >> >> >> That's far overkill. All you need to do is configure your test scripts to >> use relative pathnames. test049 (and others) in the test suite already >> operates this way. > > ok thanks for pointing this out > It has been a while since I read the tests scripts. I should have paid > more attention... > >> >> Closing this ITS. >> >>> I attach two scripts to replicate the problem. they require root (they >>> uses >>> chroots) >>> this is with openldap 2.4.39 on debian squeeze. some paths may have to be >>> fixed >>> in the scripts below >>> >>> use jclain-20140419-0start.sh to: >>> - create a ldap server to be served on ldap://localhost:3890 >>> - start the master in chroot >>> (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/master.data/slapd.log) >>> - create a seed ldap replica to be served on ldap://localhost:3891 with >>> ldap://localhost:3890 as the provider >>> - start it in chroot with option -c rid=0 >>> (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/slave.data/slapd.log) >>> >>> use jclain-20140419-1stop.sh to: >>> - stop the servers >>> - umount the chroots >>> >>> If I understand the manual correctly, after 0start.sh, the replica should >>> be >>> identical to the master thanks to -c rid=0 >>> BUT, the log on the replica says: >>> >>> 534d5481 dn_callback : new entry is older than ours cn=config ours >>> 20140415154713.807278Z#000000#000#000000, new >>> 20140415154704.888204Z#000000#000#000000 >>> >>> and indeed, the seed entries are NOT overwritten >>> I have to "touch" them on the master to force the replication. >>> >>> I have uploaded the scripts to http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ >>> >>> thanks in advance >>> >>> -- Jephté Clain Direction des Systèmes d'Information et des Usages Numériques - 2IG Tél. 0262 93 86 31 Fax. 0262 93 81 06

1 0

(ITS#7841) high disk utilization
by dmitrii.fonariuk＠gmail.com 21 Apr '14

21 Apr '14

Full_Name: Dmitrii Fonariuk Version: 2.4.38 OS: rhEL6.x86_64 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (91.210.4.1) There is a big value of DISK WRITE parameter in utility Iotop when in MDB a lot of Free pages (Freelist Status). Supposedly this situation arises from memory management algorithm. The algorithm FIFO is used for pages block allocation in free pages pool. We touched and dirty different pages on every modification transaction, which then flushed to disk by system process Flush. Perhaps it would be better to use the LIFO, which will to dirty the same pages by different transactions, which reduces the load on the disk? we use MDB with EnvFlags writemap and mapasync.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7840) bug with initial/seed syncrepl
by jephte.clain＠univ-reunion.fr 20 Apr '14

20 Apr '14

hello, thanks for your answer. see my response below 2014-04-20 7:13 GMT+04:00 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com>: > Jephte.Clain(a)univ-reunion.fr wrote: >> >> Full_Name: Jephte CLAIN >> Version: 2.4.39 >> OS: Debian 6 64bits >> URL: http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ >> Submission from: (NULL) (93.176.62.129) >> >> >> I have scripts to test several replication scenarii, that setup the LDAP >> environment then allow me to play with parameters as I see fit. >> >> I believe that there is a bug with the "seed replication" that allow one >> to >> build an exact clone of a master with minimal configuration on the slave >> side. > > > There is no bug. The syncrepl consumer is working as designed. If you want > the consumer's entries to be automatically overwritten, create the consumer > first so that its seed entries have older timestamps than the provider. ok, it works as designed. I just didn't know what the design was :-) quoting man slapd: Use only the rid part to force a full reload. I guess I didn't notice that the word "full" have a different meaning here than usual about creating the consumer first. you are kidding, right? in production, the provider exists long before the consumer is set up. the tests I do are based on the production state. anyway, my automated scripts "touch" the provider after setting up the slave, so this is not a problem. It's just that I would prefer not to have wasted time wondering why the slave was not being updated even though I asked for a "full" reload Thanks for your answer. It's now clearer in my mind. I Cc the openldap-technical list, this can help others. > >> note: the tests below require 2 VMs, or running the two slapd instances in >> chroots, because a clone replica requires the data files to be in the same >> path... > > > That's far overkill. All you need to do is configure your test scripts to > use relative pathnames. test049 (and others) in the test suite already > operates this way. ok thanks for pointing this out It has been a while since I read the tests scripts. I should have paid more attention... > > Closing this ITS. > >> I attach two scripts to replicate the problem. they require root (they >> uses >> chroots) >> this is with openldap 2.4.39 on debian squeeze. some paths may have to be >> fixed >> in the scripts below >> >> use jclain-20140419-0start.sh to: >> - create a ldap server to be served on ldap://localhost:3890 >> - start the master in chroot >> (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/master.data/slapd.log) >> - create a seed ldap replica to be served on ldap://localhost:3891 with >> ldap://localhost:3890 as the provider >> - start it in chroot with option -c rid=0 >> (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/slave.data/slapd.log) >> >> use jclain-20140419-1stop.sh to: >> - stop the servers >> - umount the chroots >> >> If I understand the manual correctly, after 0start.sh, the replica should >> be >> identical to the master thanks to -c rid=0 >> BUT, the log on the replica says: >> >> 534d5481 dn_callback : new entry is older than ours cn=config ours >> 20140415154713.807278Z#000000#000#000000, new >> 20140415154704.888204Z#000000#000#000000 >> >> and indeed, the seed entries are NOT overwritten >> I have to "touch" them on the master to force the replication. >> >> I have uploaded the scripts to http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ >> >> thanks in advance >> >> > > > -- > -- Howard Chu > CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ > Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ -- cordialement, Jephté Clain Direction des Systèmes d'Information et des Usages Numériques - 2IG Tél. 0262 93 86 31 Fax. 0262 93 81 06

1 0

Re: (ITS#7840) bug with initial/seed syncrepl
by hyc＠symas.com 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Jephte.Clain(a)univ-reunion.fr wrote: > Full_Name: Jephte CLAIN > Version: 2.4.39 > OS: Debian 6 64bits > URL: http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ > Submission from: (NULL) (93.176.62.129) > > > I have scripts to test several replication scenarii, that setup the LDAP > environment then allow me to play with parameters as I see fit. > > I believe that there is a bug with the "seed replication" that allow one to > build an exact clone of a master with minimal configuration on the slave side. There is no bug. The syncrepl consumer is working as designed. If you want the consumer's entries to be automatically overwritten, create the consumer first so that its seed entries have older timestamps than the provider. > note: the tests below require 2 VMs, or running the two slapd instances in > chroots, because a clone replica requires the data files to be in the same > path... That's far overkill. All you need to do is configure your test scripts to use relative pathnames. test049 (and others) in the test suite already operates this way. Closing this ITS. > I attach two scripts to replicate the problem. they require root (they uses > chroots) > this is with openldap 2.4.39 on debian squeeze. some paths may have to be fixed > in the scripts below > > use jclain-20140419-0start.sh to: > - create a ldap server to be served on ldap://localhost:3890 > - start the master in chroot > (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/master.data/slapd.log) > - create a seed ldap replica to be served on ldap://localhost:3891 with > ldap://localhost:3890 as the provider > - start it in chroot with option -c rid=0 > (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/slave.data/slapd.log) > > use jclain-20140419-1stop.sh to: > - stop the servers > - umount the chroots > > If I understand the manual correctly, after 0start.sh, the replica should be > identical to the master thanks to -c rid=0 > BUT, the log on the replica says: > > 534d5481 dn_callback : new entry is older than ours cn=config ours > 20140415154713.807278Z#000000#000#000000, new > 20140415154704.888204Z#000000#000#000000 > > and indeed, the seed entries are NOT overwritten > I have to "touch" them on the master to force the replication. > > I have uploaded the scripts to http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ > > thanks in advance > > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

(ITS#7840) bug with initial/seed syncrepl
by Jephte.Clain＠univ-reunion.fr 19 Apr '14

19 Apr '14

Full_Name: Jephte CLAIN Version: 2.4.39 OS: Debian 6 64bits URL: http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ Submission from: (NULL) (93.176.62.129) I have scripts to test several replication scenarii, that setup the LDAP environment then allow me to play with parameters as I see fit. I believe that there is a bug with the "seed replication" that allow one to build an exact clone of a master with minimal configuration on the slave side. note: the tests below require 2 VMs, or running the two slapd instances in chroots, because a clone replica requires the data files to be in the same path... I attach two scripts to replicate the problem. they require root (they uses chroots) this is with openldap 2.4.39 on debian squeeze. some paths may have to be fixed in the scripts below use jclain-20140419-0start.sh to: - create a ldap server to be served on ldap://localhost:3890 - start the master in chroot (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/master.data/slapd.log) - create a seed ldap replica to be served on ldap://localhost:3891 with ldap://localhost:3890 as the provider - start it in chroot with option -c rid=0 (the logs are in /jclain-slapd-test/slave.data/slapd.log) use jclain-20140419-1stop.sh to: - stop the servers - umount the chroots If I understand the manual correctly, after 0start.sh, the replica should be identical to the master thanks to -c rid=0 BUT, the log on the replica says: 534d5481 dn_callback : new entry is older than ours cn=config ours 20140415154713.807278Z#000000#000#000000, new 20140415154704.888204Z#000000#000#000000 and indeed, the seed entries are NOT overwritten I have to "touch" them on the master to force the replication. I have uploaded the scripts to http://jclain.fr/openldap-its/ thanks in advance

1 0

Re: (ITS#7839) openldap libdb5 support
by michael＠stroeder.com 17 Apr '14

17 Apr '14

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Further footnote - this is why we recommend nss-pam-ldapd or nssov, which > fully isolates applications from the underlying nss/pam libraries. And why we > don't recommend SSSD. A shame they had to go off and reinvent the wheel > without actually fixing its underlying problems. Some people never learn. Hmm. AFAICT sssd also isolates from the nss/pam libraries. The pam_sss and libnss_sss modules also communicate with sssd over a Unix domain socket just like the other demons and accompanying modules you prefer do. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7839) openldap libdb5 support
by hyc＠symas.com 17 Apr '14

17 Apr '14

quanah(a)zimbra.com wrote: > --On Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:55 PM +0000 marc.schildt(a)idealo.de wrote: > >> Full_Name: Marc Schildt >> Version: 2.4.24 - 2.4.39 > > The OpenLDAP project is in no way associated with the utterly broken builds > provided by Debian. I would note that you cannot simply change the version > of BDB that OpenLDAP is linked to and expect your database to work. You > *must* slapcat your db using the old version of BDB, then upgrade openldap, > then import with slapdd into the new build of OpenLDAP with the newer BDB. > Nothing in your report specifically sounds like an issue with OpenLDAP > itself. > > I've been using OpenLDAP with BDB 5.2 for many years, no issue. This ITS > will be closed. As a footnote - you cannot have two versions of BDB linked into the same process and expect things to work. If changing the version of BDB that OpenLDAP is built with breaks SSSD, then you have a runtime linking problem, and again, that's something to take up with your distro. Not an OpenLDAP issue. Further footnote - this is why we recommend nss-pam-ldapd or nssov, which fully isolates applications from the underlying nss/pam libraries. And why we don't recommend SSSD. A shame they had to go off and reinvent the wheel without actually fixing its underlying problems. Some people never learn. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

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