- openldap-bugs - openldap.org

Re: (ITS#5316) authzTo unevaluated in 2.4.7
by hyc＠symas.com 10 Jan '08

10 Jan '08

m.erde(a)gmx.net wrote: > First, I actually meant of course "authzid" in ITS > > After some tests, I found out that the filter expression in authzTo- > Attribute of the authentication entity caused the Problems: While > > authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(uid=*) > > does not work (with uid as rdn), > > authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(objectClass=*) > > does. Regenerate your presence index on uid. http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200712/msg00193.html This ITS will be closed. -- -- 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

(ITS#5319) Rename on same DN failes
by abartlet＠samba.org 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Andrew Bartlett Version: HEAD CVS OS: Fedora 8 URL: Submission from: (NULL) (59.167.251.137) Renaming a DN to itself, whether or not changing case, fails. This should succeed, preferably for all cases, so that it is possible to change the case of an RDN. This would also assist Samba4, as AD supports these renames, and I am working on a mapping layer from OpenLDAP to Samba4. Howard Chu notes on the openldap-technical list that logic to allow this existed in the past, but appears to have been lost.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote: > Howard Chu writes: >>> If anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has >>> been supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written). >> That doesn't mean it has any relevance today; there's plenty of stuff >> UMich did that was long since deprecated. > > True, but this was not deprecated that I know of. It is now. ;) The outcome of the original discussion, which Kurt again reminded me of today, was that ldapmodify should quit its guessing games and just accept valid LDIF input. The description of the exceptions in the manpage seemed imply they were there to accommodate slurpd users, who needed a mechanism for applying failed updates to a target server. Now that all slurpd/replog support has been dropped, there really is no more justification for these exceptions. > Snipping a bit from the -devel thread: > Howard Chu wrote: >> (Did I mention that I've always thought the mod-spec definition was >> garbage? The format I use for the logschema has none of these problems >> or inefficiences...) > > As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. > reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same > attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". I suppose reqMod should be made ordered. My point about logschema is that reqMod's syntax doesn't require separators/terminators or as many redundant attribute references. attr:- foo attr:+ bar is a far more efficient representation than delete: attr attr: foo - add: attr attr: bar - The logschema format is also easily grep-able without resorting to grep windowing and other such hassles. > Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others > do. This is really getting off topic, unless you're suggesting that we spec this for a new version of LDIF. -- -- 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#5316) authzTo unevaluated in 2.4.7
by m.erde＠gmx.net 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

First, I actually meant of course "authzid" in ITS After some tests, I found out that the filter expression in authzTo- Attribute of the authentication entity caused the Problems: While authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(uid=*) does not work (with uid as rdn), authzTo: ldap:///ou=users,ou=accounts,dc=dom??one?(objectClass=*) does. -Mat

1 0

(ITS#5318) response msgid <= 0 mishandled in libldap
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard libraries/libldap/result.c:try_read1msg() accesses 'lr' uninitialized if 'id' (message ID) from line 577's 'ber_get_int( ber, &id )' is <= 0. I'm not sure if the client should terminate the connection when it receives message id < 0, or if it should just toss the response like it does with unknown message IDs. With message ID 0, the code reaches this statement with 'lr' uninitialized: Debug( LDAP_DEBUG_TRACE, "read1msg: ld %p msgid %ld message type %s\n", (void *)ld, (long)lr->lr_msgid, ldap_int_msgtype2str( tag ) ); As far as I can tell, normally lr->lr_msgid == id. I haven't tracked what those values are with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS at the 'nextresp2:' label. A 700-line function with 5 labels, yuck. Anyway, I wonder why taht statement and the statement below: if ( id == 0 ) { doesn't use the same value, either id or lr->lr_msgid for both.

1 0

(ITS#5317) bad result for ldapsearch -f
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD, RE24 OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard ldapsearch rev 1.241 "allow continuous mode" introduced one bug and one probably-byg: * ldapsearch -f/dev/null returns an uninitialized value 'rc'. Fixing. * last instead of "worst" search return value is returned with continuous mode. I.e error followed by success returns success. I assume it should return failure like ldapmodify (see the code which saves rc in 'ret')?

1 0

(ITS#5316) authzTo unevaluated in 2.4.7
by m.erde＠gmx.net 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Matthias Erde Version: 2.4.7 OS: FreeBSD 6 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (85.176.162.227) Hello, after upgrading to 2.4.7 (from 2.4.6) I cannot longer authzTo neither authcid in sasl binds nor proxyauth (e.g. as used by Howard's ldapdb contributed to cyrsu-sasl) were working. -Mat

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Thinking a bit more... I wrote: > But I agree those attribute names make things icky. Attributes named "add"/"delete"/"replace" are not the only problem cases. A program which generates LDIF must also take care with attributes named "control" and "changetype". And with OpenLDAP, "increment". Which may be a worse problem since it's not mentioned in the LDIF spec. Still, the new ldapmodify seems to me to add very little value to the ldapadd program. It is ldapadd which accepts LDIF format. ldapmodify does not. Yet the only difference now seems to be that one can omit the "changetype:" line, one must still use the more verbose "add/..." and "_" lines. Another possible approach: Strict LDIF format, a record's attributes shall use "add/replace/...: attribute" if and only if the record has a "changetype:" line. Without them, ldapadd does changetype:add + add:attrs, ldapmodify does changetype:modify + replace:attrs. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Howard Chu writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one >> dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify >> record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and >> one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"): > > No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named > "add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There > are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs. Well, you'd have to use "add/delete/replace:". ldapmodify only noticed those keywords after "-", "dn:" and "changetype:" lines.to omit it. to omit it. But I agree those attribute names make things icky. And they still do, because "changetype:" is optional. This LDIF: dn: dc=example,dc=com add: foo foo: bar affects attr "foo" with ldapmodify, but "add" and "foo" with ldapadd. The current change seems to me to require either too little or too much RFC 2849 conformance in ldapmodify. (Require the final "-" and it gets stricter.) >> OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute >> description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: >> attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too. > > Likewise, this is unsafe. Why so? Treat a ": value" line followed by a "whatever:" line as if there was a "-" line between. "delete/replace: attr" not followed by attribute value lines might need a "-" after it though. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one > dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify > record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and > one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"): No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named "add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs. > OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute > description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: > attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too. Likewise, this is unsafe. > Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others > do. -- -- 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#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

I wrote: > As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. > reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same > attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". Sorry, followed by "add: foo" makes more sense. E.g. delete sn: chu add sn: Chu -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Howard Chu writes: > Hm... Where were you when we were originally discussing these changes? > http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200611/msg00013.html > http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200611/msg00022.html Absent. I did look at it though, but I didn't realize how far the changes went. See below. > HEAD has been working this way for over a year, and it's clearly more > correct in its behavior now than it was before. True, the old way was quite broken as that thread shows. >> If anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has >> been supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written). > > That doesn't mean it has any relevance today; there's plenty of stuff > UMich did that was long since deprecated. True, but this was not deprecated that I know of. So: > It may be OK to revert this single aspect of the change. If you do so, > just make sure that those other corner cases mentioned in the -devel > thread are still handled correctly. Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"): dn: dc=example,dc=com changetype: modify add: cn cn: foo # bug: implicit "add: sn". Since the "-" was optional, one might even # expect the new attribute type to revert to the default "replace:". sn: bar - # Safe after the "-" but possibly confusing - implicit "replace: # description" and "replace: telephoneNumber" description: xyzzy telephoneNumber: 12345678 # OK: implicit "replace:" for everything dn: dc=example,dc=com changetype: modify cn: foo sn: bar description: xyzzy telephoneNumber: 12345678 Snipping a bit from the -devel thread: Howard Chu wrote: > (Did I mention that I've always thought the mod-spec definition was > garbage? The format I use for the logschema has none of these problems > or inefficiences...) As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete: attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too. Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others do. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com writes: >> daveh(a)coreng.com.au wrote: >>> As a followup, I should point out that this behaviour worked in at least >>> 2.2 and 2.3. >> Yes, I recall changing this in the 2.4 code; I guess I didn't update >> the manpage. > > Not sure which of this discussion should go where - I saw it first in > the ldap@umich list. But anyway, I suggest to revert that change. Hm... Where were you when we were originally discussing these changes? http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200611/msg00013.html http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200611/msg00022.html HEAD has been working this way for over a year, and it's clearly more correct in its behavior now than it was before. > If > anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has been > supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written). That doesn't mean it has any relevance today; there's plenty of stuff UMich did that was long since deprecated. > Note that the format which OpenLDAP-2.4 ldapmodify reads is still not > LDIF, since "changetype:" defaults to modify instead of add. That's > incompatible with LDIF. OTOH default operation "replace:" for > changetype "modify" was compatible with LDIF, since LDIF does not > support a missing "add/delete/replace:" for changetype modify. > > Some history: > > - umich ldap-3.3 (1996): There were two LDIF defaults: Whether a missing > "changetype:" would default to "add" or "modify", and whether a > missing attribute operation type would default to "add" or "replace". > These were controlled by different flags: -a (or invoking as ldapadd) > for the first, -r (replace) for the second. > > - RFC 2849 - LDIF (2000): The defaults "changetype:modify" and > "replace:" were dropped, presumably because a file format could not > support command line options. > > - OpenLDAP 2.1 (2002): Removed the -r option and instead made it the > default when changetype was modify (and thus for ldapmodify). -r was > only used with ldapmodify and was usually what one wanted there. > (Note that "replace:" is equivalent to "add:" if the attribute does > not already exist in the entry.) It may be OK to revert this single aspect of the change. If you do so, just make sure that those other corner cases mentioned in the -devel thread are still handled correctly. -- -- 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

(ITS#5315) Crash in ldap_parse_page_control
by rhafer＠suse.de 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

Full_Name: Ralf Haferkamp Version: RE24, HEAD OS: any URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (85.8.71.175) Applications using ldap_parse_page_control (e.g. nss_ldap) might crash. valgrind reports this: ==21971== Invalid write of size 8 ==21971== at 0x5BDFF04: ldap_parse_page_control (pagectrl.c:263) ==21971== by 0x599F170: do_result (ldap-nss.c:2511) ==21971== by 0x599F289: do_parse (ldap-nss.c:2844) ==21971== by 0x59A0245: _nss_ldap_getent_ex (ldap-nss.c:3413) [..] ==21971== Address 0x51fad38 is 0 bytes after a block of size 8 alloc'd ==21971== at 0x4C2460E: malloc (in /usr/lib64/valgrind/amd64-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so) ==21971== by 0x5E0652C: ber_memalloc_x (memory.c:226) ==21971== by 0x5BDFEEB: ldap_parse_page_control (pagectrl.c:259) ==21971== by 0x599F170: do_result (ldap-nss.c:2511) ==21971== by 0x599F289: do_parse (ldap-nss.c:2844) ==21971== by 0x59A0245: _nss_ldap_getent_ex (ldap-nss.c:3413) [..] Fix is on the way to HEAD.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 09 Jan '08

09 Jan '08

hyc(a)symas.com writes: >daveh(a)coreng.com.au wrote: >> As a followup, I should point out that this behaviour worked in at least >> 2.2 and 2.3. > > Yes, I recall changing this in the 2.4 code; I guess I didn't update > the manpage. Not sure which of this discussion should go where - I saw it first in the ldap@umich list. But anyway, I suggest to revert that change. If anything, the LDIF RFC could be revised instead. This format has been supported since umich ldap (before the LDIF RFC was written). Note that the format which OpenLDAP-2.4 ldapmodify reads is still not LDIF, since "changetype:" defaults to modify instead of add. That's incompatible with LDIF. OTOH default operation "replace:" for changetype "modify" was compatible with LDIF, since LDIF does not support a missing "add/delete/replace:" for changetype modify. Some history: - umich ldap-3.3 (1996): There were two LDIF defaults: Whether a missing "changetype:" would default to "add" or "modify", and whether a missing attribute operation type would default to "add" or "replace". These were controlled by different flags: -a (or invoking as ldapadd) for the first, -r (replace) for the second. - RFC 2849 - LDIF (2000): The defaults "changetype:modify" and "replace:" were dropped, presumably because a file format could not support command line options. - OpenLDAP 2.1 (2002): Removed the -r option and instead made it the default when changetype was modify (and thus for ldapmodify). -r was only used with ldapmodify and was usually what one wanted there. (Note that "replace:" is equivalent to "add:" if the attribute does not already exist in the entry.) -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5313) Referral error
by ando＠sys-net.it 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

> Thank you so much. > > slapd or ldapadd should report a warning.. and not inform success: > "adding new entry "ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi"" No. What you added is a perfectly legitimate labeledURI, although not what you intended, where the URI is "ldap://<ip>/ou=domain1,o=Museu" and the label is "Goeldi"; there is no way (except a crystal ball) slapd can guess your intentions in this case. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. 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#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by daveh＠coreng.com.au 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Howard Chu wrote: > Yes, I recall changing this in the 2.4 code; I guess I didn't update the > manpage. So it's officially dead? No worries; I've just finished converting the last of our legacy scripts. (I can see where you changed it in the source; should've checked that first...) -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Ph: +61 2 9552-5509 (direct) +61 2 9552-5500 (switch) Corinthian Eng'ng P/L, Ste 54 Jones Bay Whf, 26-32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont 2009, AU

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by hyc＠symas.com 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

daveh(a)coreng.com.au wrote: > As a followup, I should point out that this behaviour worked in at least > 2.2 and 2.3. Yes, I recall changing this in the 2.4 code; I guess I didn't update the manpage. -- -- 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#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by daveh＠coreng.com.au 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

As a followup, I should point out that this behaviour worked in at least 2.2 and 2.3.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5310) ppolicy
by mhardin＠symas.com 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Hi Kevin, The ITS system is for reporting defects in OpenLDAP, and the symptoms you are describing are not indicative of that. The OpenLDAP team will probably close this ITS with a comment to that effect. The 'passwd' command is an OS tool, not part of OpenLDAP. Its interaction with OpenLDAP is through the pam_ldap module, and the conifguration of that module is most likely where your problem lies. I suggest posting this question on the pam_ldap mailing list that is operated by PADL, or requesting support from your OS vendor (RedHat?). Cheers, -Matt -- Matthew Hardin Symas Corporation - The LDAP Guys http://www.symas.com khxie(a)directv.com wrote: > Full_Name: Kevin Xie > Version: 2.3.39 > OS: RHEL 4 update 3 > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (147.21.16.3) > > > I am testing ppolicy on OpenLDAP 2.3.39 and 2.3.38. > When user password expired, LDAP forced user to change password using "passwd", > it bypassed all the ppolicy settings, like, PwdMinLength, PwdInHistory. > Is there a way to force "passwd" to check LDAP ppolicy like "ldappasswd" does? > Is it because "passwd" and "ldappasswd" using different encryption methods? > > I've uploaded ppolicy and slapd.conf in khxie_ppolicy.txt. > I've google searched the issue and didn't find any anwser. > > Thanks for your help. > > Kevin Xie > > > . > >

1 0

(ITS#5314) slapd crashed in syncrepl and mirror mode when deleting entry
by savithri＠yahoo.com 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Full_Name: Savithri Version: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 OS: SunOS 5.9 Generic_118558-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/savithri-pkg-080108.tar.gz Submission from: (NULL) (12.111.90.130) Hi, Im using fresh install of OpenLDAP 2.4.7 and using the mirrormode and syncrepl. My setup has 2 LDAP nodes, one as master and other as slave through a VIP. When the master goes down, the slave will become master and vice-versa. At any point to keep both the LDAP in sync I'm using mirror mode and syncrepl. When one node , say A is up (that is the active node) and the other node B is down, I delete some LDAP entry from node A. Then when i start node B, the slapd on node B crashes and a core file is generated. I have zipped the following files: 1. slapd.conf/s from both nodes (slapd.conf.node_A and slapd.conf.node_B ) 2. sample data ( sample_data.ldif ) 3. compile, run options ( build_run_option.txt) 4. the core file ( core) 5. log files from both the nodes A and B ( node_A_ldap.out and node_B_ldap.out) and have ftp the file "savithri-pkg-080108.tar.gz" to ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5313) Referral error
by ando＠sys-net.it 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

reinaldoc(a)gmail.com wrote: > Full_Name: Reinaldo de Carvalho > Version: 2.3.30 > OS: Debian DNU/Linux > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (201.72.201.200) > > > #cat ref.ldif > dn: ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi > objectClass: referral > objectClass: extensibleObject > ref: ldap://10.0.0.2/ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi > ou: domain1 > > # ldapadd -x -D "cn=admin,o=Museu Goeldi" -w xxxxx -f ref.ldif > adding new entry "ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi" > > # ldapsearch -x -b "o=Museu Goeldi" -LLL 'ref=*' > # refldap://10.0.0.2/ou=domain1,o=Museu??sub > > OpenLdap return erroneous referral ou=domain1,o=Museu??sub Please read the specifications of the "ref" attribute. Its value is treated as an LDAP URI, optionally followed by a label; an LDAP URI, like all URIs, does not allow spaces, which must be escaped using "%20". Please fix your data. This ITS will be closed. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. 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

(ITS#5313) Referral error
by reinaldoc＠gmail.com 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Full_Name: Reinaldo de Carvalho Version: 2.3.30 OS: Debian DNU/Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (201.72.201.200) #cat ref.ldif dn: ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi objectClass: referral objectClass: extensibleObject ref: ldap://10.0.0.2/ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi ou: domain1 # ldapadd -x -D "cn=admin,o=Museu Goeldi" -w xxxxx -f ref.ldif adding new entry "ou=domain1,o=Museu Goeldi" # ldapsearch -x -b "o=Museu Goeldi" -LLL 'ref=*' # refldap://10.0.0.2/ou=domain1,o=Museu??sub OpenLdap return erroneous referral ou=domain1,o=Museu??sub

1 0

Re: (ITS#5311) Custom client searching cn=Monitor crashes SLAPD
by ando＠sys-net.it 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

Howard Chu wrote: > ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: >> I couldn't reproduce with a test (mostly unloaded) slapd. Since >> back-monitor dynamically builds the results based on the activity of >> slapd, the root cause could be related to the type of activity your >> slapd is doing (e.g. active connections, running operations and so). >> >> I don't have a FreeBSD at hand right now, could you post a "thread apply >> all bt" from gdb? I might need to ask for further core inspection >> with gdb. > > The tarball he posted has more information. You can see from the debug > output that the first search succeeds and the second fails. It's failing > while preparing the cn=Tasklist entry for output. In the first search, > it shows that the BDB checkpoint task is running. Very likely it's not > running in the second search, and the cn=Tasklist entry has been > corrupted in the subsequent update. However I haven't gotten far enough > to see how any corruption could happen or reproduce it. If you can pick > it up from these clues, I'll get back to other work... OK, thanks. I'll look at it. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. 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#5311) Custom client searching cn=Monitor crashes SLAPD
by daveh＠coreng.com.au 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Pierangelo Masarati wrote: > I couldn't reproduce with a test (mostly unloaded) slapd. Since > back-monitor dynamically builds the results based on the activity of > slapd, the root cause could be related to the type of activity your > slapd is doing (e.g. active connections, running operations and so). Howard and I are already looking at this; sorry for not keeping you in the loop... -- Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU Ph: +61 2 9552-5509 (direct) +61 2 9552-5500 (switch) Corinthian Eng'ng P/L, Ste 54 Jones Bay Whf, 26-32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont 2009, AU

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs