https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6097
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2.6.1 |2.6.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6097
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2.6.0 |2.6.1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9704
Issue ID: 9704
Summary: Failing Configuration of OpenLDAP
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.7
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: build
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: narendra.challa(a)cscs.ch
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 845
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=845&action=edit
Error
Hi There,
I am new to OpenLDAP and followed the steps mentioned in this quick start guide
as it is
https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin25/quickstart.html
but failing the configuration of OpenLDAP.
I followed the below steps on CentOS 8 with 2.5.7 and successfully installed
but while configuring facing issues, please correct me if I am doing this in
the wrong way.
1. Created a Linux user dedicated to OpenLDAP with the name "nchalla" which has
sudo permissions.
2. Login with Root user and created a folder /u01
3. change permissions on /u01 (for time being granted 777 (
4. change ownership of /u01 to "nchalla"
5. downloaded the tarball and extracted the OpenLDAP 2.5.7
7. downloaded the required developer libraries
8. Logged in as nchalla and navigated to the OpenLDAP 2.5.7 extracted folder
and start compiling and installing with the below commands
./configure --prefix=/u01/ldap
make depend
make
make test (all tests were passed)
make install
9. Started the configuration following the below steps
a. created a folder /u01/ldap/etc/slapd.d
b. updated the slapd.ldif with our domain name
c. navigate to /u01/ldap and executed the command below,
sbin/slapadd -n 0 -F /u01/ldap/etc/slapd.d -l /u01/ldap/etc/openldap/slapd.ldif
which is throwing error messages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9701
Issue ID: 9701
Summary: OpenLDAP replica skips few items while synchronization
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.44
Hardware: x86_64
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: mgkrishnan(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
I have an OpenLdap cluster with 6 nodes, when an item is added/deleted in the
master, the synchronization kicks in and the changes are replicated to other
slave nodes in the cluster, but sometimes one of the slave cluster nodes (the
same node all the time) misses the updates and hence there is a difference
between this slave node and the rest of the slave nodes and the master, so
sometimes when the request goes to the unsynchronized slave it yields invalid
results.
In the problematic slave's ldap logs, there is no error information during this
operation to the master which explains the miss, so cant figure out what has
caused this problem, bringing down that slave and re-add does not help either.
What could be the root cause 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=6949
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/412
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9698
Issue ID: 9698
Summary: per database olcSecurity: tls=0 does not override
olcSecurity: tls=1 from the frontend
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.7
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org
Target Milestone: ---
I have these databases:
cn=config
frontend,cn=config
mdb/suffix o=A,cn=config
mdb/suffix o=B,cn=confix
slapd listens on port 389.
I want to make sure, that
• all requests to suffix o=A are served after STARTTLS, as these come from the
wild internet.
• all requests to suffix o=B do not have to utilize STARTTLS (ldaps), as these
are local to the machine, and
• if a request to the root DSE is made, without using STARTTLS, the client
shall gets “ldap_bind: Confidentiality required (13) additional info: TLS
confidentiality required”.
To enforce STARTTLS for suffix o=A I put there `olcSecurity: tls=1`.
If I set
dn: olcDatabase=frontend,cn=config
olcAccess: to dn="" by tls_ssf=256 * read
and the rootDSE is requested without STARTTLS, the result is just empty, rather
than “ldap_bind: Confidentiality required (13) additional info: TLS
confidentiality required”.
To get the “confidentiality required” for the root DSE I have to put
dn: olcDatabase=frontend,cn=config
olcSecurity: tls=1
or
dn: cn=config
olcSecurity: tls=1
It was unclear to me which one shall I use, but both serve the same purpose.
Now, I want to enable no-STARTTLS to suffix o=B. I put there “olcSecurity:
tls=0”. Irrespective, if only cn=config, or only
olcDatabase=frontend,cn=config contain “olcSecurity: tls=1” the “olcSecurity:
tls=0” in suffix o=B is not enacted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949
--- Comment #13 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Generally, it looks like this feature was implemented using slapd options and
ignoring the slapd configured loglevel. This is problematic in that it:
a) Breaks the longstanding expectation of being able to control logging via the
loglevel/olcLogLevel settings in slapd.conf/cn=config
b) Requires a restart to change the logging level
c) Is going to be a multi-step issue on systemd based systems, as the debug
level would need to be modified in the systemd overrides configuration file.
I.e., one cannot simply do even a slapd restart to change the loglevel with
this implementation.
Generally expectation:
a) loglevel continues to control logging
b) it is possible to change the loglevel on the fly without restarting slapd
c) It is not necessary to fiddle with the -d option to slapd to get logging.
Setting -s 0 seems fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|TEST |---
Status|RESOLVED |CONFIRMED
--- Comment #12 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Unable to get this to work in master.
Set up a generic slapd with cn=config
Did an ldapmodify to set the logging options:
ldapmodify -x -H ldapi:/// -D cn=config -w secret
dn: cn=config
changetype: modify
add: olcLogFile
olcLogFile: /var/symas/slapd.log
-
add: olcLogFileOnly
olcLogFileOnly: TRUE
-
add: olcLogFileRotate
olcLogFileRotate: 12 10 1
modifying entry "cn=config"
Logfile is created, but nothing is logged to it.
Restarted slapd, still nothing logged to it.
Explicitly set the loglevel to stats sync
Still nothing logged to it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9697
Issue ID: 9697
Summary: healthcare software development
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ritesh.patil732(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
https://mobisoftinfotech.com/industry/healthcare-software-development
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949
--- Comment #11 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
For reference, with the test008 config, timings for progs/slapd-tester -H
ldap://:9011 -D cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com -w secret -d testdata -P progs -l
1000
-s0 -dnone 18.92 seconds
-s0 -d256 23.37 seconds
-s0 -d256 + rotate 27.00 seconds
-s256 -dnone 45.33 seconds
Logfile params were
logfile testrun/logfile
logfile-rotate 12 10 1
logfile-only true
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9464
Issue ID: 9464
Summary: Test suite file conf.sh tries to sed unused items
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: ---
The conf.sh script tries to sed values that are not meant for replacement but
instead are environment variables handled by run.in and defines.sh. This
should be deleted from conf.sh
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9694
Issue ID: 9694
Summary: Can Delta-sync’s changelog be based on a sessionlog?
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.7
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the replication terminology, the terms sessionlog and accesslog are used.
sessionlog is created by the syncprov-overlay/syncprov-sessionlog directive;
accesslog is created in first place by the accesslog overlay.
Delta-syncrepl introduces an additional term: changelog. The example at
https://www.openldap.org/devel/admin/replication.html#Delta-syncrepl%20Prov…
uses accesslog for the changelog.
The documentation is unclear, whether the changelog must be backed on
accesslog-database, or it can be backed also on a sessionlog. (⇔Is delta-sync
happy just with a sessionlog?)
The documentation in slapo-syncprov(5) for syncprov-nopresent says “This value
should only be set TRUE for a syncprov instance on top of a log database (such
as one managed by the accesslog overlay).”
Is sessionlog a log database?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7595
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9687
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8341
--- Comment #9 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Re25:
• 2a537ad0
by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-09-14T16:17:45+00:00
ITS#8341 Allow normalised values for namingContexts in cn=monitor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8341
--- Comment #8 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE26:
• ea92405a
by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-09-14T16:17:25+00:00
ITS#8341 Allow normalised values for namingContexts in cn=monitor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8341
--- Comment #7 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
• bfe3d19e
by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-09-09T10:26:06+01:00
ITS#8341 Allow normalised values for namingContexts in cn=monitor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9619
Issue ID: 9619
Summary: mdb_env_copy2 with MDB_CP_COMPACT in mdb.master3
produces corrupt mdb file
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.29
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
When copying an LMDB database with mdb_env_copy2 with the MDB_CP_COMPACT with
mdb.master3, the resulting mdb file seems to be corrupt and when using it in
LMDB, I get segmentation faults. Copying without the compacting flag seems to
work fine. I apologize, I know this is not a very good issue report, as I
haven't had a chance to actually narrow this down to a more
reproducible/isolated case, or look for how to patch. I thought I would report
in case there are any ideas on what could cause this. The segmentation faults
always seem to be memory write faults (as opposed to try fault on trying to
read). Or perhaps the current backup/copying functionality is eventually going
to be replaced by incremental backup/copying anyway
(https://twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1315651814096875520). I'll try to update
this if I get a chance to investigate more, but otherwise feel free to
ignore/consider low-priority since the work around is easy.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6467
--- Comment #11 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE25:
commit a00ec090bdcdfdb390ace2238f581ad147e5974f
Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net>
Date: Tue Jun 1 13:56:58 2021 +0100
ITS#6467 Free uuid list after we're finished
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6467
--- Comment #10 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
commit 726a2031334d066a6e463d7b992b6ca7b390e631
Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net>
Date: Tue Jun 1 13:56:58 2021 +0100
ITS#6467 Free uuid list after we're finished
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9571
Issue ID: 9571
Summary: Add Behera Draft 8 compatibility flag to ppolicy
overlay
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: mhardin(a)symas.com
Target Milestone: ---
The RFC for Behera Password Policy, Draft, 10 changes modification semantics of
certain policy attributes from those that were in effect in Draft 8. To
preserve compatibility with applications that depend on the Draft 8 semantics,
a compatibility flag needs to be added to the ppolicy configuration that
restores the Draft 8 semantics.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8962
--- Comment #5 from Mehmet gelisin <mehmetgelisin(a)aol.com> ---
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://www-look-4.com/
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.compilatori.com/
RE24:
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://www.wearelondonmade.com/
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00 http://www.jopspeech.com/
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783 http://joerg.li/
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
RE24: http://connstr.net/
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
master:
Commits:
• 0ae71baf
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T12:10:28+01:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog http://embermanchester.uk/
RE25:
Commits:
• 11e0c783
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:04:31+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.slipstone.co.uk/
RE24:
Commits:
• db23304b
by Howard Chu at 2021-07-13T15:05:36+00:00
ITS#9608 fix delete of nonexistent sessionlog
http://www.logoarts.co.uk/
but unfortunatley the FAQ software breaks Apache when you try and
delete an answer. I think the better solution is just to remove the FAQ
software completely.
I experimented a bit with a service file. It seems to work well with
either Type=forking and NotifyAccess=all, or Type=notify and
http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/
ExecStart=slapd -d none. The latter (disabling forking) is definitely
what systemd upstream recommends.
In either case, MAINPID= didn't actually seem to help anything.
NotifyAccess=main has a chicken-and-egg problem, because systemd needs
to know the main PID in order for us to send it the message containing
the PID! :) I think the only reasonable way to leave forking enabled
https://waytowhatsnext.com/
would be to also require a PIDFile= setting, which solves that problem.
But I'd rather sidestep the entire thing, omit MAINPID= as well, and
Looking at the systemctl output I still think STATUS= is redundant and
could be omitted.
https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/
So I guess my recommendation for the notify call boils down to:
rc = sd_notify( 1, "READY=1" );
and a slapd.service along the lines of:
[Unit]
Description=OpenLDAP server
[Service]
Type=notify
ExecStart=%LIBEXECDIR%/slapd -h 'ldap:/// ldapi:///' -d0
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
(basically identical to the example in systemd.service(5).)
Side note: the version message from slapd appears in the journal twice,
once with the timestamp and once without...
I experimented a bit with a service file. It seems to work well with
either Type=forking and NotifyAccess=all, or Type=notify and
ExecStart=slapd -d none. The latter (disabling forking) is definitely
what systemd upstream recommends.
In either case, MAINPID= didn't actually seem to help anything.
NotifyAccess=main has a chicken-and-egg problem, because systemd needs
to know the main PID in order for us to send it the message containing
the PID! :) I think the only reasonable way to leave forking enabled
http://www.iu-bloomington.com/
would be to also require a PIDFile= setting, which solves that problem.
But I'd rather sidestep the entire thing, omit MAINPID= as well, and
Looking at the systemctl output I still think STATUS= is redundant and
could be omitted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.