https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4656
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #17 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
The auditlog overlay generates something quite similar, and there's little
value in supporting this at this point.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
trunk:
Commits:
• d5ed7c50
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-28T11:09:25+01:00
ITS#9054, #9318 document new TLS options in slapd
RE24:
Commits:
• cfc231a5
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-28T15:27:59+00:00
ITS#9054, #9318 document new TLS options in slapd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9135
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2.5.0 |2.4.52
Resolution|TEST |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Commits:
• ce6d302c
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-28T01:30:53+00:00
ITS#9135 fix index error on collapsed range
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
--- Comment #5 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
head:
Commits:
• 53676779
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-27T11:22:58+01:00
ITS#9054 fix typo
RE24:
Commits:
• d2139d5c
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-27T15:05:46+00:00
ITS#9054 fix typo
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8725
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Sigh, wrong commit in the message, but:
Commits:
• 8d312196
by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-08-26T21:55:39+00:00
More for ITS#8845, skip cleanup on async op with extended operations
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8725
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8725
--- Comment #5 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Note: Adjust debug statement there for head/RE25. ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8725
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|TEST |---
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1 |0
--- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
This seems to be missing the following necessary change:
diff --git a/servers/slapd/extended.c b/servers/slapd/extended.c
index 2b55438..59624f7 100644
--- a/servers/slapd/extended.c
+++ b/servers/slapd/extended.c
@@ -176,6 +176,12 @@ do_extended(
op->o_bd = frontendDB;
rs->sr_err = frontendDB->be_extended( op, rs );
+ if ( rs->sr_err == SLAPD_ASYNCOP ){
+ /* skip cleanup */
+ Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_TRACE, "do_extended: skipping cleanup for
ASYNCOP\n", 0, 0, 0 );
+ return rs->sr_err;
+ }
+
/* clean up in case some overlay set them? */
if ( !BER_BVISNULL( &op->o_req_ndn ) ) {
if ( !BER_BVISNULL( &op->o_req_dn )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9314
Issue ID: 9314
Summary: Add slap_client_keepalive to proto-slap.h
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
When building OpenLDAP, there are implicit declaration warnings that would be
resolved by adding the missing function definition of slap_client_keepalive to
proto-slap.h (if appropriate).
From back-ldap:
bind.c:714:2: warning: implicit declaration of function
'slap_client_keepalive'; did you mean 'slap_client_connect'?
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
slap_client_keepalive(ld, &li->li_tls.sb_keepalive);
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7239
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2.5.0 |2.6.0
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9316
Issue ID: 9316
Summary: performance issue when writing a high number of large
objects
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.24
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: JGabler(a)univa.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 755
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=755&action=edit
lmdb performance test reproducing the issue
When writing a high number of big objects we see an extreme variation in
performance from very fast to extremely slow.
In the test scenario we write 10 chunks of 10.000 "jobs" (some 10kB) and their
corresponding "job script" (some 40kB), 200.000 objects in total.
Then delete all objects.
We do 10 iterations of this scenario.
When running this scenario as part of Univa Grid Engine with LMDB as database
backend we get the following performance values (rows are the iteration,
columns the chunk of jobs):
Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 21.525 21.250 21.574 21.722 22.693 21.992 22.438 22.650
21.972 22.017
1 22.262 21.656 22.339 22.914 21.549 24.906 23.862 1531.189
1695.041 1491.255
2 36.071 21.619 22.074 22.927 23.455 27.239 22.640 22.802
633.956 1882.008
3 52.163 21.651 21.571 22.686 22.727 22.024 40.980 22.156
22.429 595.362
4 64.977 21.511 22.519 22.148 22.354 23.292 57.740 20.835
37.680 250.594
5 54.724 21.074 21.200 23.744 22.109 21.351 62.225 21.447
91.292 375.260
6 49.065 21.573 22.309 26.084 21.226 21.248 68.580 22.531
59.338 249.936
7 44.666 21.830 21.009 28.760 21.533 21.611 72.291 23.144
86.281 118.326
8 35.486 21.720 21.840 24.729 22.045 20.877 76.473 21.193
120.387 136.836
9 41.159 23.365 21.721 23.024 21.835 20.972 77.409 21.784
193.885 306.158
So usually writing of 10.000 "jobs"+"job_script" takes some 22 seconds but
after some time performance massively breaks in.
With other database backends we do not see this behaviour, see the following
performance data of the same test done with PostgreSQL backend which is slower
(as expected going over the network) but provides constant throughput:
Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 36.937 37.110 36.952 37.279 37.580 37.364 37.950 37.390
37.682 37.439
1 37.464 38.110 37.679 38.366 37.576 37.624 37.476 37.412
37.265 37.727
2 36.394 37.635 37.347 37.603 37.402 37.515 37.802 37.898
37.355 37.939
3 37.213 37.539 36.771 37.706 37.055 37.780 37.283 37.488
36.955 37.460
4 36.554 37.557 37.368 37.960 37.070 37.892 37.459 37.857
37.228 37.833
5 37.047 38.164 37.167 37.885 37.268 37.676 37.355 37.572
37.347 37.569
6 37.118 37.735 36.857 37.602 36.717 37.716 37.444 37.685
37.085 38.151
7 36.787 37.647 36.844 37.601 36.934 37.440 37.632 37.291
37.174 37.926
8 36.884 37.560 37.117 37.239 37.034 37.748 37.289 37.635
36.822 37.693
9 37.178 37.496 36.849 37.799 37.289 37.644 37.461 37.622
37.022 37.670
We can reproduce the issue with a small C program (see attachment) which does
essentially the same database operations as our database layer in Univa Grid
Engine but depends only on liblmdb.
It simulates the scenario described above and gives us the following
performance data
showing the extreme performance variation:
Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 0.686 0.625 0.660 0.637 0.631 0.741 0.757 0.658
0.651 0.614
1 0.705 0.838 0.690 0.772 0.663 3.248 0.605 542.762
1114.374 898.477
2 13.336 1.299 0.659 0.637 0.626 0.712 11.172 0.663
29.833 1161.884
3 26.774 0.647 0.607 0.586 0.583 0.639 24.893 0.629
3.837 423.248
4 32.802 0.629 0.616 0.560 0.550 0.605 31.133 0.625
6.606 195.150
5 34.819 0.623 0.628 0.582 0.564 0.609 32.275 0.607
7.599 134.106
6 26.319 0.622 0.582 0.548 0.551 0.590 28.536 0.611
36.429 160.781
7 21.878 0.814 0.668 0.736 0.614 0.543 24.355 0.626
36.583 148.337
8 4.129 0.654 5.674 0.596 0.566 0.554 7.158 0.633
0.599 48.799
9 30.278 0.608 0.608 0.560 0.549 0.587 29.253 0.606
9.593 128.339
It can be compiled on Linux 64bit with
gcc -I <path to lmdb>/include -L <path to lmdb>/lib -o test_lmdb_perf
test_lmdb_perf.c -llmdb
To run the given scenario call it with the following parameters:
./test_lmdb_perf <path to database directory> 10 10 10000
We built and ran it on
- CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core)
- Linux biber 3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Dec 6 15:49:49 UTC 2019
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
- it was built with gcc (GCC) 7.2.1 20170829 (Red Hat 7.2.1-1) from
devtoolset-7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|TEST |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE24:
• aacec4c8
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-21T22:21:43+00:00
ITS#9054 Add support for multiple EECDH curves
Requires OpenSSL 1.0.2 or newer
• a9f42b12
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-21T23:02:11+00:00
ITS#9054, #9318 add new TLS options to slapd bindconf
For use with back-ldap/back-meta/syncrepl/etc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9326
Issue ID: 9326
Summary: Expose LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_NEWCTX on process signal
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dar(a)xoe.solutions
Target Milestone: ---
After a process manager taking note of a certificate roll over, it will be
convenient for such process manager to instruct the slapd daemon to set
LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_NEWCTX for both client(s) and server(s) tls context through an
IPC signal.
Thereby servers would gain graceful support with minimal downtime for
certificate rolling.
Alternatively, dn=config _can_ be put in a shape so as to receive a dummy
operation that induces a config reload.
While this is possible, it is inconvenient for several reasons:
1. It requires a _dummy_ op, and thereby has the notion of a workaround
2. It triggers a reload of the entire config, instead of only renewing the tls
context (educated guess on my side)
3. It requires the process manager to somehow gain directly or indirectly
knowledge of the ldap protocol. This increases deployment complexity.
4. It requires special handling of authC and authZ for such process manager and
thereby significantly increases deployment complexity - especially authZ in the
context of immutable / gitops-controlled configs.
5. Those dummy operations have to be crafted against olcGlobal for the server
and any database's olcSyncRepl configuration. Therefore a helper must also read
given values and dummy-replace them back in.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8427
--- Comment #28 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
Current code in master with this fix has also broken back-ldap when TLS was not
requested - it is issuing a Start TLS request anyway, because bindconf_tls_set
always initializes the sb_tls_ctx and when back-ldap ldap_back_prepare_conn
sees a non-NULL sb_tls_ctx it tries to use it. The connection request then
fails because the start_tls request fails. I'm currently seeing these errors in
the slapd.1.log from test048.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9325
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
--- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
additional in master for slapd:
Commits:
• 650b1404
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-21T20:06:56+01:00
ITS#9054, #9318 add new TLS options to slapd bindconf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9054
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
Target Milestone|2.5.0 |2.4.52
--- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
OL head:
Commits:
• 2386a116
by Howard Chu at 2020-08-21T07:58:07+01:00
ITS#9054 Add support for multiple EECDH curves
Requires OpenSSL 1.0.2 or newer
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9321
Issue ID: 9321
Summary: ldapsearch nettimeout doesn't work with startTls when
the server address is not reachable
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: allen.zhang(a)audiocodes.com
Target Milestone: ---
We found that ldapsearch doesn't return with failure according to the
nettimeout when the server address is not valid. it fails only after TCP
timeout (about 120 seconds in my environment).
we dug into in to the source code and found that :
in common.c, we set the nettimeout after ldap_start_tls_s is called.
We tried to call "ldap_set_option( ld, LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT, (void *)
&nettimeout )" before ldap_start_tls_s and it works well!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9266
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dar(a)xoe.solutions
--- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
*** Issue 9318 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9309
Issue ID: 9309
Summary: slapd exits on failed assertion in ppolicy.c: 912
ctrls_cleanup
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: jakealexis(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 753
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=753&action=edit
slapd debug -1 output
When trying to authenticate against slapd, it exits with an assertion failure:
`slapd: ppolicy.c:912: ctrls_cleanup: Assertion `rs->sr_ctrls != NULL' failed.`
I have searched quite extensively, and have found multiple previous bug reports
with similar symptoms, often to do with the ppolicy overlay. Most of these have
been marked as closed and fixed, but I'm using the latest version and still
getting the same problem.
I have found one RedHat bug with similar symptoms that described it as a config
error, but with no details of what the config error is - and the assert
statement doesn't help me narrow it down.
I have tested this on 2.4.46 and 2.4.50, same behaviour.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9308
Issue ID: 9308
Summary: slapo-allow contrib module increments uninitialized
variable
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.51
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: contrib
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Line 335 declares "i" with no default value
line 345 increments it
Need to fix the for loop at 339 to ensure it is initialized before
incrementation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9304
Issue ID: 9304
Summary: Archived-At: -> 404
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I appreciate this mailing list message header:
Archived-At:
<https://openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/messag…>
But unfortunately the link returns 404.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9294
Issue ID: 9294
Summary: ppolicy and replication: Multiple values for
pwdLockedTime in violation of schema
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.50
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
If you have the following setup, a replica can end up with user entries in a
non-schema compliant state:
a) ppolicy is configured on provider(s) and replicas. Replica has
schemachecking=off in its syncrepl configuration
b) account gets locked on the replica, so pwdAccountLockedTime is set on the
replica but not on the provider(s)
c) admin does a MOD/ADD op against a provider for the user entry to add a value
to pwdAccountLockedTime
dn: ...
changetype: modify
add: pwdAccountLockedTime
pwdAccountLockedTime: ...
d) provider accepts this modification.
e) replica accepts this modification
f) account entry on replica now has two values for pwdAccountLockedTime in
violation of it being a single valued attribute:
"( 1.3.6.1.4.1.42.2.27.8.1.17 "
"NAME ( 'pwdAccountLockedTime' ) "
"DESC 'The time an user account was locked' "
"EQUALITY generalizedTimeMatch "
"ORDERING generalizedTimeOrderingMatch "
"SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.24 "
"SINGLE-VALUE "
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.