- openldap-bugs - openldap.org

Re: (ITS#5187) test020-proxycache failing in RE_2_4
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

<quote who="Ralf Haferkamp"> > On Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007, ghenry(a)openldap.org wrote: >> Full_Name: Gavin Henry >> Version: RE_2_4 >> OS: FC7 - i386 >> URL: >> ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/testrun-test020-proxycache-failing.tar.gz >> Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) >> Submitted by: ghenry >> >> >> [ghenry@suretec tests]$ ./run test020 > [..] >> Successfully verified cacheability >> Query 10: filter:(|(cn=*Jones)(sn=Jones)) attrs:cn sn title uid >> Query 11: filter:(sn=Smith) attrs:cn sn title uid >> Query 12: filter:(uid=bjorn) attrs:mail postaladdress telephonenumber cn >> uid Query 13: filter:(mail=jaj@mail.alumni.example.com) attrs:cn sn >> title >> uid Query 14: filter:(mail=*example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid >> ldapsearch failed (4) >> Query 15: filter:(uid=b*) attrs:mail >> ldapsearch failed (4) >> Query 10 not answerable > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This on seems to be the problem it should be "answerable". Does the test > fail > for you reproducably? I am asking because it doesn't fail for me. Neither > in > RE24 nor in HEAD. > On the i386 at my home office, everytime. At our main office, a AMD 64 Dual Core test machine passes ok. Will try home office again later today. Thanks.

1 0

(ITS#5188) ldap_get_option documentation
by senarvi2007＠gmail.com 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Full_Name: Seppo Enarvi Version: OpenLDAP 2.4.5beta OS: N/A URL: Submission from: (NULL) (193.208.185.178) The manual page for ldap_get_option is inaccurate regarding LDAP_OPT_TIMEOUT and LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT. It says outvalue and invalue must be a struct timeval * while in fact outvalue has to be a struct timeval **. Also, it is only said in the source code that the caller has to free outvalue.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5187) test020-proxycache failing in RE_2_4
by rhafer＠suse.de 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

On Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007, ghenry(a)openldap.org wrote: > Full_Name: Gavin Henry > Version: RE_2_4 > OS: FC7 - i386 > URL: > ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/testrun-test020-proxycache-failing.tar.gz > Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) > Submitted by: ghenry > > > [ghenry@suretec tests]$ ./run test020 [..] > Successfully verified cacheability > Query 10: filter:(|(cn=*Jones)(sn=Jones)) attrs:cn sn title uid > Query 11: filter:(sn=Smith) attrs:cn sn title uid > Query 12: filter:(uid=bjorn) attrs:mail postaladdress telephonenumber cn > uid Query 13: filter:(mail=jaj@mail.alumni.example.com) attrs:cn sn title > uid Query 14: filter:(mail=*example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid > ldapsearch failed (4) > Query 15: filter:(uid=b*) attrs:mail > ldapsearch failed (4) > Query 10 not answerable ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This on seems to be the problem it should be "answerable". Does the test fail for you reproducably? I am asking because it doesn't fail for me. Neither in RE24 nor in HEAD. > Query 11 answerable > Query 12 answerable > Query 13 not answerable > Query 14 not answerable > Query 15 answerable > Error in verifying answerability -- Ralf

1 0

(ITS#5187) test020-proxycache failing in RE_2_4
by ghenry＠OpenLDAP.org 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Full_Name: Gavin Henry Version: RE_2_4 OS: FC7 - i386 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/testrun-test020-proxycache-failing.tar.gz Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) Submitted by: ghenry [ghenry@suretec tests]$ ./run test020 Cleaning up test run directory leftover from previous run. Running ./scripts/test020-proxycache... Starting master slapd on TCP/IP port 9011... Using ldapsearch to check that master slapd is running... Using ldapadd to populate the master directory... Starting proxy cache on TCP/IP port 9012... Using ldapsearch to check that proxy slapd is running... Making queries on the proxy cache... Query 1: filter:(sn=Jon) attrs:all (expect nothing) Query 2: filter:(|(cn=*Jon*)(sn=Jon*)) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 3: filter:(sn=Smith*) attrs:cn sn uid Query 4: filter:(sn=Doe*) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 5: filter:(uid=johnd) attrs:mail postaladdress telephonenumber cn uid Query 6: filter:(mail=*@mail.alumni.example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 7: filter:(mail=*) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 8: filter:(mail=*example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid ldapsearch failed (4) Query 9: filter:(uid=b*) attrs:mail ldapsearch failed (4) Query 1 not cacheable Query 2 cacheable Query 3 cacheable Query 4 cacheable Query 5 cacheable Query 6 cacheable Query 7 not cacheable Query 8 cacheable Query 9 cacheable Successfully verified cacheability Query 10: filter:(|(cn=*Jones)(sn=Jones)) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 11: filter:(sn=Smith) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 12: filter:(uid=bjorn) attrs:mail postaladdress telephonenumber cn uid Query 13: filter:(mail=jaj@mail.alumni.example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid Query 14: filter:(mail=*example.com) attrs:cn sn title uid ldapsearch failed (4) Query 15: filter:(uid=b*) attrs:mail ldapsearch failed (4) Query 10 not answerable Query 11 answerable Query 12 answerable Query 13 not answerable Query 14 not answerable Query 15 answerable Error in verifying answerability

1 0

Re: (ITS#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ghenry＠OpenLDAP.org 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: >> ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: >> >>> All tests pass in HEAD. test048 still failing in RE24. >> The difference consists in James A Jones 2 not being deleted from the >> slave when deleted from the master. I'm investigating... > > re24 was missing the syncrepl portion of the fix for ITS#5168. Fixed. OK, I'll update that machine and retest to double check ;-) Thanks. > > 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 > --------------------------------------- > > > -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. OpenLDAP Engineering Team. E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org Community developed LDAP software. http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ando＠sys-net.it 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > >> All tests pass in HEAD. test048 still failing in RE24. > > The difference consists in James A Jones 2 not being deleted from the > slave when deleted from the master. I'm investigating... re24 was missing the syncrepl portion of the fix for ITS#5168. Fixed. 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#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ando＠sys-net.it 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > All tests pass in HEAD. test048 still failing in RE24. The difference consists in James A Jones 2 not being deleted from the slave when deleted from the master. I'm investigating... 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#5186) problem with olcsuffix
by gfa＠zumbi.com.ar 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

Full_Name: gustavo panizzo Version: 2.3.38 OS: linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (200.82.42.251) sldapd shouldn't accept the duplication of attr olcSuffix when the backend is hdb/bdb later, slapd don't accept childs from the new suffix, and if is stoped slapd don't start again until remove the ofender entry

1 0

Re: (ITS#5184) pkg-config file for libraries
by ghenry＠OpenLDAP.org 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > mccann(a)jhu.edu wrote: >> Full_Name: William Jon McCann Version: 2.3.34 OS: URL: >> ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) >> (128.220.146.19) >> >> >> It would be really helpful for openldap to ship a pkg-config (.pc) >> file for libldap. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config > > Quoting from the above link: > >> When a library is installed (say from an RPM, deb or other binary >> packaging system) > > OpenLDAP only distributes source code > >> If one installs from source, often there will be no .pc file >> generated, and one may need to be manually written to reflect the >> install. > > No comment. > > Having noted this, I think generating a .pc file from "make install" > would probably do no harm and probably bring some benefit to people that > want to use pkg-config to configure software dependent on OpenLDAP. > > But I guess most packagers and distributors would still either provide > their alternate means to configure packages, or provide specific .pc > files, thus possibly breaking configurations based on OpenLDAP's .pc file. > And most are still far behind and "do their own thing" anyway. Ours would get ignored either way. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. OpenLDAP Engineering Team. E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org Community developed LDAP software. http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted
by ando＠sys-net.it 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

Matthew Hardin wrote: > Thanks for the prompt response, Ando. I've put the fix into production and > I'll let you know how it goes. This problem only surfaces every few days > when AD doesn't respond to a bind request, so will be at least Thursday or > Friday before I can confirm it did the trick. FWIW, the issue you indicated could be easily reproduced by either adding a slapo-retcode in front of the remote server with a sleep longer than the proxy's timeout, or simply by running the remote server under gdb, stopping at do_bind long enough to see the timeout expire. I did the latter, and I could 100% reproduce that issue before patching, while it disappeared after. 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#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted
by mhardin＠symas.com 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

> -----Original Message----- > From: Pierangelo Masarati [mailto:ando@sys-net.it] > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 2:19 AM > To: mhardin(a)symas.com > Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org > Subject: Re: (ITS#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote > directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted > > ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > > > Does this happen when binding as the rootdn of the back-meta instance, > > or as a regular user? If it occurs when binding as the rootdn, then I > > think I know where the problem is. In that case, apart from me fixing > > the problem (working at it...), you should also use > > "pseudoroot-bind-defer yes". > > I partially take it back: the above recommendation is correct; however, > the problem I suspected for the rootdn case is also present for regular > binds. I've committed to HEAD a fix for this problem. Please test. Thanks for the prompt response, Ando. I've put the fix into production and I'll let you know how it goes. This problem only surfaces every few days when AD doesn't respond to a bind request, so will be at least Thursday or Friday before I can confirm it did the trick. I've also taken your advice and set pseudoroot-bind-defer yes. Thanks, -Matt Matthew Hardin Symas Corporation- The LDAP Guys http://www.symas.com > 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#5183) Index problem with ;x- attributes.
by ando＠sys-net.it 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

Magnus.Jonsson(a)umdac.umu.se wrote: > Full_Name: Magnus Jonsson > Version: 2.3.38 > OS: Debian GNU/linux ”Etch” > URL: http://foo.fot.nu/reproduce.txt > Submission from: (NULL) (130.239.200.171) > > > We are using ;x- attributes in a specific appliation to group some attributes. > > When removing a ;x- attrbute all the indexs for that attribute disapears. > > example: > > cn: index > cn;x-f-1: index > cn;x-f-2: index > > If a remove the cn;x-f-1 attribute I can't search for (cn=index) anymore. I confirm your report, except that if the type and all subtypes have the same value, and if I remove the "cn;x-f-1" value, I can no longer search for "cn" equality, but I can still search for "cn;x-f-2". 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#5184) pkg-config file for libraries
by ando＠sys-net.it 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

mccann(a)jhu.edu wrote: > Full_Name: William Jon McCann Version: 2.3.34 OS: URL: > ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) > (128.220.146.19) > > > It would be really helpful for openldap to ship a pkg-config (.pc) > file for libldap. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config Quoting from the above link: > When a library is installed (say from an RPM, deb or other binary > packaging system) OpenLDAP only distributes source code > If one installs from source, often there will be no .pc file > generated, and one may need to be manually written to reflect the > install. No comment. Having noted this, I think generating a .pc file from "make install" would probably do no harm and probably bring some benefit to people that want to use pkg-config to configure software dependent on OpenLDAP. But I guess most packagers and distributors would still either provide their alternate means to configure packages, or provide specific .pc files, thus possibly breaking configurations based on OpenLDAP's .pc file. 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#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted
by ando＠sys-net.it 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > Does this happen when binding as the rootdn of the back-meta instance, > or as a regular user? If it occurs when binding as the rootdn, then I > think I know where the problem is. In that case, apart from me fixing > the problem (working at it...), you should also use > "pseudoroot-bind-defer yes". I partially take it back: the above recommendation is correct; however, the problem I suspected for the rootdn case is also present for regular binds. I've committed to HEAD a fix for this problem. Please test. 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#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted
by ando＠sys-net.it 13 Oct '07

13 Oct '07

mhardin(a)symas.com wrote: > Remote directory servers that do not answer a bind request within the timeout > period will cause an assertion failure in back-meta. > > Analysis: > The meta_back_bind() function calls either meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() if the > bind is taking place with back_meta's rootdn or meta_back_single_bind() if it's > not. > > Once they make the appropriate bind function call, each of these functions calls > meta_back_bind_op_result() to process the result of the bind. Neither > meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() or meta_back_single_bind() set the > LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING state. Because it's meta_back_getconn() that's supposed to set that flag when appropriate. > When meta_back_bind_op_result() calls ldap_result(), one of the possible return > codes is 0, and meta_back_bind_op_result() will repeat the ldap_result() call, > provided the timeout hasn't been exceeded or back-meta has been told not to > retry. > > If the wait time has been exceeded the code falls through to an > assert(LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING(msc)) statement. This assert is only valid when > meta_back_do_bind() has made the function call, and it will fail if either > meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() or meta_back_single_bind() made the function call. The assert **should** always be valid. Its execution indicates that there's an error somewhere else. Does this happen when binding as the rootdn of the back-meta instance, or as a regular user? If it occurs when binding as the rootdn, then I think I know where the problem is. In that case, apart from me fixing the problem (working at it...), you should also use "pseudoroot-bind-defer yes". 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#5185) assertion failure in back-meta when the remote directory does not answer a bind request within the time allotted
by mhardin＠symas.com 12 Oct '07

12 Oct '07

Full_Name: Matthew Hardin Version: 2.3.38 OS: RHEL4 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (74.38.114.43) Remote directory servers that do not answer a bind request within the timeout period will cause an assertion failure in back-meta. Analysis: The meta_back_bind() function calls either meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() if the bind is taking place with back_meta's rootdn or meta_back_single_bind() if it's not. Once they make the appropriate bind function call, each of these functions calls meta_back_bind_op_result() to process the result of the bind. Neither meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() or meta_back_single_bind() set the LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING state. When meta_back_bind_op_result() calls ldap_result(), one of the possible return codes is 0, and meta_back_bind_op_result() will repeat the ldap_result() call, provided the timeout hasn't been exceeded or back-meta has been told not to retry. If the wait time has been exceeded the code falls through to an assert(LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING(msc)) statement. This assert is only valid when meta_back_do_bind() has made the function call, and it will fail if either meta_back_proxy_authz_bind() or meta_back_single_bind() made the function call. Possible Fixes: The correct fix would seem to be to remove the assert(), since in two out of three cases the meta_back_bind_op_result() function is being called with the LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING state not set. It is also possible to set and clear the LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING state as appropriate from the other two funcions that call it, but this seems incorrect, as the LDAP_BACK_CONN_BINDING state is only manipulated in the meta_back_single_dobind() direct bind function.

1 0

(ITS#5184) pkg-config file for libraries
by mccann＠jhu.edu 12 Oct '07

12 Oct '07

Full_Name: William Jon McCann Version: 2.3.34 OS: URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (128.220.146.19) It would be really helpful for openldap to ship a pkg-config (.pc) file for libldap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config

1 0

Re: (ITS#5183) Index problem with ;x- attributes.
by quanah＠zimbra.com 12 Oct '07

12 Oct '07

--On Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:37 PM +0000 Magnus.Jonsson(a)umdac.umu.se wrote: > Full_Name: Magnus Jonsson > Version: 2.3.38 > OS: Debian GNU/linux ?Etch? > URL: http://foo.fot.nu/reproduce.txt > Submission from: (NULL) (130.239.200.171) > > > We are using ;x- attributes in a specific appliation to group some > attributes. > > When removing a ;x- attrbute all the indexs for that attribute disapears. > > example: > > cn: index > cn;x-f-1: index > cn;x-f-2: index > > If a remove the cn;x-f-1 attribute I can't search for (cn=index) anymore. > > I have tested with bdb and ldbm. > > Berkeley v4.3 is used. Did you fail to note how OpenLDAP's configure specifically is designed to abort when building against BDB 4.3? BDB 4.3 is known to be a bad release. I suggest using 4.2.52+patchs, 4.4+patches, or 4.5+patches. Not that this necessarily will resolve the issue you are reporting. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

(ITS#5183) Index problem with ;x- attributes.
by Magnus.Jonsson＠umdac.umu.se 11 Oct '07

11 Oct '07

Full_Name: Magnus Jonsson Version: 2.3.38 OS: Debian GNU/linux Etch URL: http://foo.fot.nu/reproduce.txt Submission from: (NULL) (130.239.200.171) We are using ;x- attributes in a specific appliation to group some attributes. When removing a ;x- attrbute all the indexs for that attribute disapears. example: cn: index cn;x-f-1: index cn;x-f-2: index If a remove the cn;x-f-1 attribute I can't search for (cn=index) anymore. I have tested with bdb and ldbm. Berkeley v4.3 is used. A small example with all you need to reproduce the symtoms is available in the provided link.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

<quote who="ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com"> > <quote who="ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org"> >> Full_Name: Gavin Henry >> Version: OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4 >> OS: Fedora 7 >> URL: http://www.suretec.org/our_docs/test048.tar.gz >> Submission from: (NULL) (80.229.93.1) >> Submitted by: ghenry >> >> >> I'm getting a fail at: >> >> "master and R1 slave databases differ" >> >> I'd like to learn how to debug this. Any tips? >> >> This is on a 64-Bit AMD machine, 2GB Ram, Berkeley 4.2.52. >> >> Thanks. > > I'll double check this in HEAD now too. Should have done that first. > All tests pass in HEAD. test048 still failing in RE24. Gavin.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5172) slash in dn
by hyc＠symas.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

reinhold.may(a)gmx.de wrote: > Raphael, > >> My new crystal ball tells me that you are not saying the >> essential part of the problem: you are using back-ldif, isn't >> it ? > > It is! Did I miss a hint which would have told me not to use > back-ldif or use it differently? back-ldif is really not meant for general use. It does no caching or indexing, so it will perform very poorly in general. It was only written to provide a base for cn=config. -- -- 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#5172) slash in dn
by reinhold.may＠gmx.de 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

Pierangelo, > This output is not useful. I'm sorry. > First of all, can you tell what ldapadd you're using? Please > make sure you run the version of ldapadd that comes with > OpenLDAP sources you built. I can confirm that ldapadd was built alongside slapd whose version I stated in my original post (2.3.35). As I'm not at home at the moment, the only thing I can do is extract the syslog of that import in question which admittedly doesn't say much, however, here it goes: Oct 10 02:16:19 mm slapd[9746]: slapd starting Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 fd=8 ACCEPT from IP=192.168.0.3:40394 (IP =0.0.0.0:389) Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root,dc=somedomain,dc=or g" method=128 Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: failed to open file "/var/lib/openldap-data/dc=s omedomain,dc=org/cn=root.ldif": No such file or directory Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root,dc=somedomain,dc=or g" mech=SIMPLE ssf=0 Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 text= Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=1 ADD dn="dc=somedomain,dc=org" Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=1 RESULT tag=105 err=0 text= Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=2 ADD dn="ou=My address book,dc=somedo main,dc=org" Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=2 RESULT tag=105 err=0 text= Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=3 ADD dn="cn=With/Slash,ou=My address book,dc=somedomain,dc=org" Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=3 RESULT tag=105 err=32 text=Parent do es not exist Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 op=4 UNBIND Oct 10 02:16:31 mm slapd[9746]: conn=0 fd=8 closed Raphael, > My new crystal ball tells me that you are not saying the > essential part of the problem: you are using back-ldif, isn't > it ? It is! Did I miss a hint which would have told me not to use back-ldif or use it differently? Reinhold

1 0

Re: (ITS#5172) slash in dn
by ando＠sys-net.it 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

raphael.ouazana(a)linagora.com wrote: > Le Mer 10 octobre 2007 02:31, reinhold.may(a)gmx.de a écrit : >> adding new entry "cn=With/Slash,ou=My address book,dc=somedomain,dc=org" >> ldap_add: No such object (32) >> additional info: Parent does not exist >> >> which is erroneous. > > My new crystal ball tells me that you are not saying the essential part of > the problem: you are using back-ldif, isn't it ? Well, if Raphael's analysis is correct (in that case, can I borrow your crystal ball, occasionally?), the problem is now fixed in HEAD/re24/re23. Please test. 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#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

<quote who="ando(a)sys-net.it"> > ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > >> >> "master and R1 slave databases differ" >> >> I'd like to learn how to debug this. Any tips? >> >> This is on a 64-Bit AMD machine, 2GB Ram, Berkeley 4.2.52. > > Can't look at your tar right now; but: > > - check in scripts/test048* where the "master and R1 slave databases > differ" line is, and see what files are being tested > > - they probably are macros, defined in scripts/defines.sh, something > like testrun/ldif.flt and testrun/ldapsearch.flt yeah, did all that. It's one entry difference. server1.1.flt and server2.1.flt > > - run diff -iu FILE1 FILE2 as resolved above and see where it fails. > > If it points you somewhere (e.g. the difference is trivial, or there's > something very specific to a precise modification) fine, otherwise post > the outcome. Will check again on HEAD and continue. > > 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#5182) test048 in OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 10 Oct '07

10 Oct '07

<quote who="ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org"> > Full_Name: Gavin Henry > Version: OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4 > OS: Fedora 7 > URL: http://www.suretec.org/our_docs/test048.tar.gz > Submission from: (NULL) (80.229.93.1) > Submitted by: ghenry > > > I'm getting a fail at: > > "master and R1 slave databases differ" > > I'd like to learn how to debug this. Any tips? > > This is on a 64-Bit AMD machine, 2GB Ram, Berkeley 4.2.52. > > Thanks. I'll double check this in HEAD now too. Should have done that first.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs