- openldap-bugs - openldap.org

[Bug 9181] Non-initialised global options mutex causes problems on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9181 --- Comment #7 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- (In reply to Howard Chu from comment #6) > Can you retry, changing that declaration to use ldap_int_thread_mutex_t > instead? Looks like it's on its way to compiling with that, yeah. I'll wait for the build to finish and put up a merge request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9098] assert fails in meta_back_search in some cases after reconnect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9098 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|2.4.50 |2.4.51 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 7878] OpenLDAP MinGW Build Problem
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7878 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|2.5.0 |2.4.50 Resolution|TEST |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- commit f5143f99eeb66d4f5698284391ed7adf6cef9f03 (HEAD -> OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4, origin/OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4) Author: Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)nardis.ca> Date: Fri Apr 3 15:15:27 2020 -0700 ITS#7878 Replace uint32_t with unsigned in back-mdb init.c: align mi_dbenv_flags and flags with mdb_dbi_open, which declares flags as unsigned int. search.c: align mi_rtxn_size with ARG_UINT; adjust ww_ctx.nentries to silence a warning about signed/unsigned comparison. config.c: parse checkpoint config more carefully. Reject negative or unreasonably large values for kbytes and minutes. Ensure both values are parsed successfully before making any changes. Fixes a compilation failure under MinGW, where stdint.h types are not implicitly pulled in by other headers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8383] msys build error "portable.h:1116:19: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers"
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8383 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |FIXED Target Milestone|2.5.0 |2.4.50 --- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- commit 6fe9b0c65479363e4f9f03dd85fc81b2940f62df Author: Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)nardis.ca> Date: Sun Sep 1 11:53:37 2019 -0700 ITS#8383 Look for socklen_t in <ws2tcpip.h> too MinGW targets do not have the <sys/socket.h> header. The configure check would conclude that there is no socklen_t type, resulting in portable.h containing its own definition of socklen_t, which would later conflict with the actual definition in <ws2tcpip.h>. Add <ws2tcpip.h> to the configure check for socklen_t, so that the defined type is correctly detected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9181] Non-initialised global options mutex causes problems on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9181 --- Comment #6 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- (In reply to Ryan Tandy from comment #5) > Hi Howard, I'm testing my patch for ITS#8383 and this one seems to have > broken the build in my MSYS2/MinGW environment: > > cc -g -O2 -I../../include -I../../include -c -o ntservice.o > ntservice.c > In file included from ../../include/portable.h:1173, > from ntservice.c:20: > ../../include/ldap_int_thread.h:156:43: error: unknown type name > 'ldap_pvt_thread_mutex_t'; did you mean 'ldap_int_thread_mutex_t'? > 156 | ldap_pvt_thread_mutex_init_first LDAP_P(( ldap_pvt_thread_mutex_t > *mutex )); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ../../include/ldap_cdefs.h:32:25: note: in definition of macro 'LDAP_P' > 32 | # define LDAP_P(protos) protos > | ^~~~~~ > make[2]: *** [<builtin>: ntservice.o] Error 1 > > ldap_int_thread.h is included at the top of ldap_pvt_thread.h, so this > declaration is seen before the ldap_pvt_* typedefs. Can you retry, changing that declaration to use ldap_int_thread_mutex_t instead? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9223] New: Add support for incremental backup
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9223 Bug ID: 9223 Summary: Add support for incremental backup Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For LMDB 1.0, add support for incremental backups -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 6937] Remove --enable-proctitle and strdup(optarg)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Apr '20

16 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ | Resolution|--- |TEST Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • a97eed06 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-15T19:32:28+00:00 ITS#6937 - Remove unused proctitle bits -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6531] Modify updateref to generate referrals on the backend
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '20

15 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6531 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6166] Overlay/backend restructuring
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '20

15 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6166 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 7878] OpenLDAP MinGW Build Problem
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7878 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |2.5.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 7878] OpenLDAP MinGW Build Problem
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7878 Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #6 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: 38f9dd2f by Ryan Tandy at 2020-04-14T10:04:33-07:00 ITS#7878 Replace uint32_t with unsigned in back-mdb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9043] Improve loglevel sync logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

1 0

[Bug 9043] Improve loglevel sync logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9043 --- Comment #1 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • f6d9fdc4 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2020-04-14T09:58:03+01:00 ITS#9043 Improve replication loggging -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9156] latest ppolicy draft support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Apr '20

14 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9156 --- Comment #10 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:41:54PM +0000, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote: > The problem was that I was using old lastbind overlay, which in some way was in > conflict with current lastbind. > If I understand correctly, the current lastbind is now completely included into > OpenLDAP 2.5? No, features you might want to configure lastbind with do not (yet) have an equivalent in the core implementation, so I haven't removed it from 2.5 yet. > It is very important to me, because as a maintainer of OpenLDAP-LTB, we would > have to warn people that the configuration parameters have changed (overlay > lastbind -> lastbind on) and that the overlay won't be provided any more. > > >> - pwdStartTime, pwdEndTime: OK, but there is no special ppolicy code returned, >> and if I read correctly the draft >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behera-ldap-password-policy-10#section-7.1), >> an "accountLocked" extended error code should be triggered. > > I was simply missing the ppolicy_use_lockout parameter. > One remark though: the reason of locking is not very explicit. > I understand that many companies/organizations will consider it is a good thing > to hide this information for security reasons. For the others, maybe could we > have some sort of level? > Configuration example: > lockout_message_description [none|minimal|verbose] The message is output by the client, the only information provided is the ppolicy response control: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behera-ldap-password-policy-10#section-6.2 (or rather https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/doc/drafts/draft-b…) Providing any more information would need to be integrated into the draft as well. > In the specification the extended error code could simply stay as it is: > "(1)Account locked", but we could add a more precise description in case the > verbose mode is enabled: "(1)Account locked (account unused for a too long > time)" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8731] Variadic Debug() macro
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8731 --- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- • bbe20cbf by Ryan Tandy at 2020-04-13T18:57:50+00:00 ITS#8731 cleanup unused logbuf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |TEST Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED --- Comment #16 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • e50741e4 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-13T17:19:35+00:00 ITS#6567 - More cleanup -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

1 0

[Bug 9210] New: [with patch] Infinite retry-loop (and thus 100% CPU-Usage) when lots of requests are issued
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9210 Bug ID: 9210 Summary: [with patch] Infinite retry-loop (and thus 100% CPU-Usage) when lots of requests are issued Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.47 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: lukas.juhrich(a)agdsn.de Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 706 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=706&action=edit Patch adding errno resets *tl;dr* single-stepping revealed a missing `errno` reset in `ber_int_sb_write`s retry loop. An sssd-setup of ours, which we use for basic-auth on one of our services, issues ldap calls. When under load, i.e. when many `ldap_search_ext` calls had to be issued due to many requests, we observed that the corresponding process/thread went up to 100% CPU usage and stayed there. - This was the [flamegraph](https://helios.wh2.tu-dresden.de/~shreyder/sssd_be%20--domain%20dom-http-wiki.svg), where you can see that it was stuck below `ber_int_sb_write`. - Single-Stepping with GDB revealed that we are stuck in the `for(;;)`-Retry-loop. Indeed, we could observe that the `sbi_write` was successful, but the `errno` continued to be `EINTR` every time I hit that breakpoint. - Patching `sockbuf.c` as attached and rebuilding resolved the issue. I also noticed similar sections with such a loop in `sockbuf.c` and added `errno = 0;` at the beginning of each iteration. In principle, they should suffer from the same problem. The reasoning for why this happened under load is that with many requests being issued, the probability that the write happens when the process gets an _actual_ interrupt is much higher, and once that happens, we're stuck in the infinite loop. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 18

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Apr '20

13 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #18 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 735e1ab by Howard Chu at 2020-04-12T22:18:51+00:00 ITS#8650 loop on incomplete TLS handshake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Apr '20

12 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 --- Comment #17 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- Created attachment 708 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=708&action=edit test program with non-blocking socket Here's a test program that exercises the scenario with a non-blocking socket, similar to the case described in bug 9210. Currently it fails on 2.4 with LDAP_SERVER_DOWN and on 2.5 with LDAP_TIMEOUT, but succeeds if you comment out the fcntl(). Any patch needs to correct that as well as the scenario described here with a blocking socket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Apr '20

12 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 --- Comment #16 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- *** Bug 9210 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Apr '20

12 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #15 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- The other way we can get a non-blocking socket is if the client set one up itself and gave it to us via ldap_init_fd(). sssd does this, or used to: bug 9210. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Apr '20

12 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lukas.juhrich(a)agdsn.de --- Comment #14 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- *** Bug 9210 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8650] EAGAIN from gnutls_handshake not respected
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Apr '20

12 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8650 Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=9210 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8847] New LDAP URL syntax to support binding to specific IP address at client side
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Apr '20

11 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8847 --- Comment #31 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- Hello, I have been reviewing and testing this patch and I think that there are a number of issues, some less severe and some more, that should still be addressed. In general the patch does not seem well adapted to the surrounding code. For example things have been added at random positions in lists that previously were sorted, and the whitespace style (and code style generally) are quite different from the existing code. Also, the new code does not seem to respect the configure option (and #ifdefs etc) for disabling IPv6 support. doc/man/man3/ldap_get_option.3: - LDAP_OPT_SOCKET_BIND_ADDRESSES added at the wrong place doc/man/man5/ldap.conf.5: - SOCKET_BIND_ADDRESSES added at the wrong place - typo (seperated -> separated) libraries/libldap/ldap-int.h: - /* pull in netinet/in */ is a useless comment - fails to compile under MinGW (there is no netinet/in.h header) -> I could be wrong but 'struct in_addr' feels rather low-level for this file? but I'm not sure what a better design would look like... - should not include IPv6 bits if IPv6 disabled - LDAP_LDO_NULLARG has not been updated (gcc generates a warning) - if ITS#6567 is finished before this one, MAX_LDAP_ADDR_LEN will probably need an update ("GSSAPI_ALLOW_REMOTE_PRINCIPAL" is longer than "SOCKET_BIND_ADDRESSES" is longer than "TLS_CIPHER_SUITE") libraries/libldap/options.c: - in ldap_set_option: other options reset to default when invalue == NULL, it would be nice if this would do the same - ldap_validate_and_fill_sourceip feels a bit weird again, there are no other similar functions in this file... maybe os-ip.c or util-int.c? - in the existing code, inet_pton is only used if LDAP_PF_INET6; should probably follow that pattern (there is also HAVE_INET_NTOP...) libraries/libldap/os-ip.c: - possibly the new code should be in ldap_int_prepare_socket()? not sure... - address family mismatch (only one bind address specified and socket uses the other family) ignored; should we try to catch it? -> MS implementation returns LDAP_SERVER_DOWN when this happens -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Apr '20

11 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Apr '20

11 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |--- Status|RESOLVED |CONFIRMED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Apr '20

11 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 --- Comment #15 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> --- I think there are some bits that can still be cleaned up: .gitignore:96:libraries/libldap_r/gssapi.c ^- gssapi.c itself was deleted include/ldap.h:205:/* OpenLDAP GSSAPI options */ include/ldap.h:206:#define LDAP_OPT_X_GSSAPI_DO_NOT_FREE_CONTEXT 0x6200 include/ldap.h:207:#define LDAP_OPT_X_GSSAPI_ALLOW_REMOTE_PRINCIPAL 0x6201 ^- all uses of these have been removed libraries/libldap/init.c:141:#define MAX_LDAP_ATTR_LEN sizeof("GSSAPI_ALLOW_REMOTE_PRINCIPAL") ^- previously MAX_LDAP_ATTR_LEN used "TLS_CIPHER_SUITE", probably switch it back to that (double check nothing else is longer) (note to self actually, MAX_LDAP_ATTR_LEN is almost certainly relevant for ITS#8847 too...) libraries/libldap/init.c:44: LDAP_LDO_GSSAPI_NULLARG libraries/libldap/init.c:60:#define ATTR_GSSAPI 10 libraries/libldap/ldap-int.h:308:#define LDAP_LDO_GSSAPI_NULLARG ^- I think these are just cruft as well... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ | Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #14 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • c6493c45 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-10T18:19:33+00:00 ITS#6567 - Remove non-cyrus-sasl GSSAPI bits -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9208] New: LMDB feature request: variant of mdb_env_copy{,fd2} that takes transaction as parameter
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9208 Bug ID: 9208 Summary: LMDB feature request: variant of mdb_env_copy{,fd2} that takes transaction as parameter Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: github(a)nicwatson.org Target Milestone: --- The mdb_env_copy* functions create a read transaction themselves to run the backup on. New variants of these functions (one for mdb_env_copy2 and one for mdb_env_copyfd2) would have a transaction parameter. This transaction would be used instead of creating a new transaction. Application code could use these new functions to synchronize consistent live backups across multiple LMDB instances (potentially across multiple hosts). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8441] MDB is missing in the list of possible config for proxy-cache in the admin guide
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8441 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8441] MDB is missing in the list of possible config for proxy-cache in the admin guide
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8441 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #1 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- commit ec2cb12e68923f7b3db60fe20935ca01d4a3932c Author: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> Date: Fri May 3 22:52:59 2019 +0000 ITS#9010 - Delete back-bdb/back-hdb This commits deletes all references and code for back-bdb and back-hdb. There is some follow up work still necessary to flush out the admin guide for back-mdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8441] MDB is missing in the list of possible config for proxy-cache in the admin guide
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

1 0

[Bug 9177] Finish the autoconf 2.69 upgrade
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9177 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |TEST Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ | Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 1a55a5c6 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-10T17:44:56+00:00 ITS#9177 - Finish updating migration to latest autoconf and related build tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6844] AIX 6.1 | 7.1 not supported in "configure"
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6844 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 1a55a5c6 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-10T17:44:56+00:00 ITS#9177 - Finish updating migration to latest autoconf and related build tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6269] Fails to include inter-library dependencies on QNX
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6269 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 1a55a5c6 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-10T17:44:56+00:00 ITS#9177 - Finish updating migration to latest autoconf and related build tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6306] Problems compiling OpenLDAP in 64 bit due to old libtool version included
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6306 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ | --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Commits: • 1a55a5c6 by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-10T17:44:56+00:00 ITS#9177 - Finish updating migration to latest autoconf and related build tools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6269] Fails to include inter-library dependencies on QNX
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6269 Bug 6269 depends on bug 6306, which changed state. Bug 6306 Summary: Problems compiling OpenLDAP in 64 bit due to old libtool version included https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6306 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9188] New: Expose transaction mt_flags?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9188 Bug ID: 9188 Summary: Expose transaction mt_flags? Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: code(a)doriantaylor.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 631 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=631&action=edit patch in mdb_txn_flags I have taken over maintenance of the Ruby bindings to LMDB (https://github.com/doriantaylor/lmdb/tree/reconcile-2.7) and am currently fleshing out the transaction code. What I am finding is something of a leaky abstraction: in the current configuration it is essentially too easy to write Ruby code that messes up the internal transaction bookkeeping of the binding. I am still trying to get my bearings on both the binding and the LMDB library itself, but it seems it would be generally useful if it was possible to determine whether a given transaction was read-only, so for example to prevent one from opening a read-write transaction beneath a read-only one. As such, I propose the enclosed patch that adds an `mdb_txn_flags` function, which returns the `mt_flags` field. This would enable downstream developers to tell if a given transaction was, among other things, read-only, and behave accordingly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 9011] add mdb_txn_flags()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9011 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code(a)doriantaylor.com --- Comment #1 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- *** Bug 9188 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9177] Finish the autoconf 2.69 upgrade
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9177 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target Milestone|--- |2.5.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9177] Finish the autoconf 2.69 upgrade
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Apr '20

10 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9177 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |quanah(a)openldap.org --- Comment #1 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6306] Problems compiling OpenLDAP in 64 bit due to old libtool version included
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6306 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=9177 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 9177] Finish the autoconf 2.69 upgrade
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9177 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=6306 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6567] Delete and remove everything related to ldap_gssapi_bind_s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |quanah(a)openldap.org --- Comment #13 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6937] Remove --enable-proctitle and strdup(optarg)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS Ever confirmed|0 |1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 6937] Remove --enable-proctitle and strdup(optarg)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6937 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |quanah(a)openldap.org --- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 7335] Create process for updating man pages to handle both cn=config and slapd.conf configurations
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7335 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Error in slapo-refint man |Create process for updating |page |man pages to handle both | |cn=config and slapd.conf | |configurations -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8581] slapd-meta backend SSL negotiation timeout
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8581 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |OL_2_5_REQ Summary|slapd-meta backend SSL |slapd-meta backend SSL |negociation timeout |negotiation timeout -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 8861] slapd-(async)meta(5) tls option missing ldaps
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Apr '20

09 Apr '20

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8861 --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- (In reply to Howard Chu from comment #3) > Sounds more like the back-ldap manpage is wrong. The use of "ldaps" is > implicit in the URI, so there's no point in supporting it here and it should > be an error to allow it here. In particular it makes no sense to allow it > here if it differs from the URI. Ok, although that doesn't entirely answer the rest of my question (i.e., about tls_reqcert etc missing from back-meta). Ironically I would note you're literally the person who added the "ldaps" option to back-ldap. a6a8fb514b (Howard Chu 2007-01-08 23:36:24 +0000 511) { BER_BVC( "ldaps" ), LDAP_BACK_F_TLS_LDAPS }, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs