- openldap-bugs - openldap.org

[Issue 9689] New: Redundancy in the description of syncprov-nopresent
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9689 Issue ID: 9689 Summary: Redundancy in the description of syncprov-nopresent 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: --- https://www.openldap.org/devel/admin/replication.html#Set%20up%20the%20prov… says: “““ The nonpresent option **should only be configured if the overlay is being placed on top of a log database**, such as when used with delta-syncrepl. The nonpresent option is configured by the syncprov-nopresent <TRUE|FALSE> directive. 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). The default is FALSE. ””” I think, the circumstances when the option shall be used, are repeated twice. One of the repetitions can be shortened. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9688] New: Is EQ index on entryCSN mandatory for replication?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9688 Issue ID: 9688 Summary: Is EQ index on entryCSN mandatory for replication? 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: --- https://www.openldap.org/devel/admin/replication.html says about the EQ index on entryCSN: “On databases which support inequality indexing, setting an eq index on the entryCSN attribute and configuring contextCSN checkpoints will greatly speed up this scanning step.” → The index is recommended, but not mandatory, and not always possible. man 5 slapo-syncprov / https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=slapo-syncprov&apropos=0&se… says “On databases that support inequality indexing, it is mandatory to set an eq index on the entryCSN attribute when using this overlay.” Between both documents there is a discrepancy, whether the EQ index is mandatory or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9687] New: olcTLSECName is not required in order to use ECDHE-based cipher suites in OpenSSL
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9687 Issue ID: 9687 Summary: olcTLSECName is not required in order to use ECDHE-based cipher suites in OpenSSL 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: --- SLAPD-CONFIG(5) says that olcTLSECName is used to set the names of the Elliptic Curves. It does not say, that the option is required, nor does it say what happens, when the option is not set. https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin25/tls.html#TLS%20Configuration says for TLSECName: This is required in order to use ECDHE-based cipher suites in OpenSSL. I do not set TLSECName and call ./testssl.sh ldap.aegee.org:636 which prints: Hexcode Cipher Suite Name (OpenSSL) KeyExch. Encryption Bits Cipher Suite Name (IANA/RFC) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLSv1 (server order) xc014 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA ECDH 256 AES 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA xc013 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA ECDH 256 AES 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA TLSv1.1 (server order) xc014 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA ECDH 256 AES 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA xc013 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA ECDH 256 AES 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA TLSv1.2 (server order) xc030 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 ECDH 253 AESGCM 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 xcca8 ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 ECDH 253 ChaCha20 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 xc02f ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 ECDH 253 AESGCM 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 xc028 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 ECDH 253 AES 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 xc027 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 ECDH 253 AES 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 xc014 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA ECDH 253 AES 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA xc013 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA ECDH 253 AES 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA TLSv1.3 (server order) x1302 TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 ECDH 253 AESGCM 256 TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 x1303 TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 ECDH 253 ChaCha20 256 TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 x1301 TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 ECDH 253 AESGCM 128 TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 Testing robust forward secrecy (FS) -- omitting Null Authentication/Encryption, 3DES, RC4 Elliptic curves offered: prime256v1 secp384r1 secp521r1 X25519 X448 This means, that when olcTLSECName is not set, OpenSSL defaults are used, and ECDHE-based cipher suites are still offered. testssl.sh can be obtianed from https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9674] New: Is olcMonitoring enabled by default for MDB?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9674 Issue ID: 9674 Summary: Is olcMonitoring enabled by default for MDB? Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- The manual page doc/man/man5/slapd-config.5 misses a .TP before .B olcMonitoring. In turn at https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=slapd-config&apropos=0&sekt… olcMonitoring appears in the description of olcMultiProvider . The same man page says, that only MBD supports the olcMonitoring mechanims and the default for olcMonitoring depends on the backend. The documentation for mdb does not say, if olcMonitoring is by default enabled or disabled -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9669] New: Incorrect Heimdal download site in OpenLDAP Administrator's Guide
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9669 Issue ID: 9669 Summary: Incorrect Heimdal download site in OpenLDAP Administrator's Guide Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dewayne.geraghty(a)heuristicsystems.com.au Target Milestone: --- In section 4.2.3 page 18 of latest OpenLDAP 2.5 Admin Guide has Heimdal available from http://www.pdc.kth.se/heimdal/ which is a dead link. The more correct location is https://github.com/heimdal/heimdal (Thank-you for your great software!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9646] New: slapd-meta: deprecations in 2.4: “try-propagate is highly deprecated”
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9646 Issue ID: 9646 Summary: slapd-meta: deprecations in 2.4: “try-propagate is highly deprecated” Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.4 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- The upgrade instructions from 2.4 at https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin25/appendix-upgrading.html says > B.4. ldap and meta backends > > Several deprecated configuration directives for slapd-ldap(5) and slapd-meta(5) have been removed. Configurations using those directive must be updated to use supported directives prior to upgrade. See the slapd-ldap(5) and slapd-meta(5) man pages from OpenLDAP 2.4 for a list of deprecated directives. The slapd-meta(5) for 2.4 says at https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=slapd-meta&apropos=0&sektio… , when I search for “deprecated”: > tls {[try-]start|[try-]propagate} > The try- prefix instructs the proxy to continue operations if the StartTLS operation failed; its use is highly deprecated. ... > DEPRECATED STATEMENTS > The following statements have been deprecated and should no longer be used. > pseudorootdn <substitute DN in case of rootdn bind> > Use idassert-bind instead. > > pseudorootpw <substitute password in case of rootdn bind> > Use idassert-bind instead. I object the wording “highly deprecated”. It should be “highly discouraged”. With the current wording it is not very clear, whether the try- variants disappeared in 2.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9656] New: slapd (2.5.7) crashes when ppm settings don't exist in the schema
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9656 Issue ID: 9656 Summary: slapd (2.5.7) crashes when ppm settings don't exist in the schema Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ktmdms(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- using ppolicy with ppm causes slapd to crash (2.5.7. I would have selected that as the version but it's not available to be selected) when pwdCheckModuleArg doesn't exist in the schema and/or the full path to ppm.so isn't defined in pwdCheckModule. at the time slapd would crash, pwdCheckModule was set to ppm.so not the full path of /usr/local/libexec/openldap/ppm.so and the pwdCheckModuleArg attribute didn't exist at all. whenever I would attempt to change my user password, slapd would crash. setting the full path and creating and setting the Arg attribute has stopped that behavior but I'm unsure if it was simply added the attribute or some combination of setting the full path, creating the attribute, and populating the attribute. fwiw, the attribute is set as: bWluUXVhbGl0eSA0Cm1heExlbmd0aCAwCmNoZWNrUkROIDEKZm9yYmlkZGVuQ2hhcnMgCmNsYXNz LXVwcGVyQ2FzZSBBQkNERUZHSElKS0xNTk9QUVJTVFVWV1hZWiAxIDEKY2xhc3MtbG93ZXJDYXNl IGFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6IDEgMQpjbGFzcy1kaWdpdCAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5IDEg MQpjbGFzcy1zcGVjaWFsIDw+LD87LjovIcKnw7klKsK1XsKoJMKjwrImw6l+IiMneyhbLXzDqGBf XMOnXsOgQCldwrA9fSsgMSAxCgo= -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 23

[Issue 9644] New: provide a man page for ppm
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9644 Issue ID: 9644 Summary: provide a man page for ppm Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: david.coutadeur(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Provide a man page for ppm proposed PR is coming -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9648] New: 'MAXPATHLEN' undeclared on some systems
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9648 Issue ID: 9648 Summary: 'MAXPATHLEN' undeclared on some systems Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.4 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: git(a)freundtech.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 834 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=834&action=edit Docker reproduction I'm trying to compile OpenLDAP 2.5.7 on Alpine Linux, but have verified that the problem exists since 2.5.4. Version 2.4.59 compiles correctly with everything else equal. Compilation fails with In file included from ldap-int.h:119, from request.c:53: request.c: In function 'ldap_dump_connection': ../../include/ldap_pvt.h:181:25: error: 'MAXPATHLEN' undeclared (first use in this function) 181 | #define LDAP_IPADDRLEN (MAXPATHLEN + sizeof("PATH=")) | ^~~~~~~~~~ request.c:859:17: note: in expansion of macro 'LDAP_IPADDRLEN' 859 | char from[LDAP_IPADDRLEN]; | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../../include/ldap_pvt.h:181:25: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in 181 | #define LDAP_IPADDRLEN (MAXPATHLEN + sizeof("PATH=")) | ^~~~~~~~~~ request.c:859:17: note: in expansion of macro 'LDAP_IPADDRLEN' 859 | char from[LDAP_IPADDRLEN]; | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/openldap/libraries/libldap' Thanks to JoBbZ on IRC I found out that including <ac/param.h> in ldap_pvt.h seems to fix the issue. My best guess as to why this fails on Alpine Linux and not on other distributions is that Alpine uses musl instead of glibc as it's libc implementation. I have attacked an (unfinished) dockerfile for reproduction of the issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 17

[Issue 9712] New: back-mdb multival delete isn't deleting
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9712 Issue ID: 9712 Summary: back-mdb multival delete isn't deleting Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- When deleting an entry that has multival-related attributes, those attribute values weren't getting deleted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9631] New: slapd-wt tests often fail/timeout
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9631 Issue ID: 9631 Summary: slapd-wt tests often fail/timeout Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Since merging wt into master, tests started to fail ~80-90% of the time, partly due to bugs in wt (https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/jobs/8458) or timeouts in CI. I am about to remove the backend from make test for now (keeping it in alltests), opening this issue to discuss further. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9463] New: back-wt: cumulative fix
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Oct '21

11 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9463 Issue ID: 9463 Summary: back-wt: cumulative fix Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hamano(a)osstech.co.jp Target Milestone: --- Hi, This is cumulative fix for back-wt. I'm sorry to making 2.5 patch has been delayed due to we're still using 2.4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 7335] Create process for updating man pages to handle both cn=config and slapd.conf configurations
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Oct '21

07 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7335 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.

1 0

[Issue 6097] MMR problems with deletes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Oct '21

07 Oct '21

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.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Oct '21

04 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #22 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- RE26: • ce073522 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-05T01:42:43+00:00 ITS#6949 Fix and emit error messages • 15ac53a7 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-05T01:42:48+00:00 ITS#6949 Remove dead code from lloadd • 466e0321 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-05T01:42:52+00:00 ITS#6949 Port rest of the features to lloadd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Oct '21

04 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #21 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- • a3dea08c by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-04T14:46:22+01:00 ITS#6949 Fix and emit error messages • 8894f00f by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-04T14:46:26+01:00 ITS#6949 Remove dead code from lloadd • 3c07544b by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-10-04T14:46:26+01:00 ITS#6949 Port rest of the features to lloadd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Oct '21

04 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #20 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- I would also note that there's a fair amount of fprintf( stderr, ... ) peppered around the code, that might also need cleaning up at some point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9692] New: Insertion rate in large groups slows unexpectedly
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Oct '21

04 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9692 Issue ID: 9692 Summary: Insertion rate in large groups slows unexpectedly Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 843 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=843&action=edit slapd.conf Observed during jmeter tests[1] that perform ldapmod operations, adding members into a group. The insertion speed decreases unexpectedly, as the size of the group increases. A test run starts 10 jmeter threads, each doing 1000 mods = 100,000 members added altogether to a group. At the beginning of the test, throughput is approximately 200/s. At the end, the mod rate slows down to < 10/s. Multival and sortval are enabled (slapd.conf attached): sortvals member multival member 500,3 *** Server info Ubuntu20 2 CPU Cores 4GB RAM symas-openldap-server 2.5.7-1focal1 *** To verify multival is enabled: ``` data/dc=example,dc=com# mdb_stat -s id2v . Status of id2v Tree depth: 1 Branch pages: 0 Leaf pages: 1 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 746316 ``` [1][ldap-load-gen](https://gitlab.symas.net/symas-public/ldap-load-gen) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9639] New: slapd -r : what must be present in the chroot environment
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 01 Oct '21

01 Oct '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9639 Issue ID: 9639 Summary: slapd -r : what must be present in the chroot environment Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.59 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- `man slapd` - https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=slapd&apropos=0&sektion=0&m… - says that the -r option calls chroot. Please clarify, what must be present in the chroot environment: /proc, /tmp, /dev/shm , libc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #19 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: • 66c62841 by Howard Chu at 2021-09-30T04:23:29+01:00 ITS#6949 fixup loglevel delete, consolidate redundant code RE26: • e2739d9f by Howard Chu at 2021-09-30T15:32:11+00:00 ITS#6949 fixup loglevel delete, consolidate redundant code -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9156] latest ppolicy draft support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9156 --- Comment #15 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: commit 4cd096defffc278f13edf9a194f4bc62095a947e Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> Date: Mon Jun 7 15:52:25 2021 +0100 ITS#9156 Do not spam the logs on account of lastbind Re25: • 667ea288 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2021-09-30T16:02:34+00:00 ITS#9156 Do not spam the logs on account of lastbind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9710] New: integrated lastbind debug statement at ANY level
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9710 Issue ID: 9710 Summary: integrated lastbind debug statement at ANY level Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For some reason, a debug statement for the newly integrated lastbind code is logging at ANY level, which seems incorrect: Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_ANY, "fe_op_lastbind: " "old pwdLastSuccess value=%s %lds ago\n", a->a_nvals[0].bv_val, bindtime == (time_t)-1 ? -1 : op->o_time - bindtime ); This results in log lines with every bind like: Sep 30 01:41:42 ub18 slapd[5980]: fe_op_lastbind: old pwdLastSuccess value=20210930014121Z 21s ago I think a different loglevel should be in use here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9156] latest ppolicy draft support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9156 --- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- *** Issue 9710 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6949] OpenLDAP Logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #18 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: Commits: • 10fb8c0a by Howard Chu at 2021-09-29T14:39:28+01:00 ITS#6949 fix logfile_only regression in prev commit RE26: Commits: • 74d1475a by Howard Chu at 2021-09-29T21:29:15+00:00 ITS#6949 fix logfile_only regression in prev commit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9708] New: null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String pass the dry-run validation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9708 Issue ID: 9708 Summary: null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String pass the dry-run validation Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mheyman(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- On behalf of Aaron Bliss at Paychex ---- I'm pretty confident that I've identified a bug when running slapadd with the dry-run switch. As a step of migrating a given replica set from oDSEE to OpenLDAP, we of course make use of the dry-run switch after sanitizing a given oDSEE export. However on a few migrations I've noticed that null (empty) attribute values of type Directory String (which are illegal per the RFC) pass the dry-run validation. This becomes really problematic because a subsequent slapadd in which the quick switch is passed will load the invalid data into the database. I understand that loading a given ldif using the quick switch performs fewer consistency checks on the input data however with our largest dataset's, it's not viable for us to migrate a given replica set from oDSEE to OpenLDAP without using the quick switch (it would require an outage that's far longer than we can allow for on the customer side of things). It makes total sense for sure that OpenLDAP will not allow for null values for this attribute type in keeping with the standard but unfortunately oDSEE allows for it as such we have to account for it. Would it be possible to catch the null attribute value scenario when performing a dry run and if so is there any way this could be prioritized (doing so would be of tremendous help to us)? If not then I'll have to write my own validation (not at all ideal) to check for this scenario but for sure would be better if slapadd can catch this condition. Thanks much as always. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs