openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20962 discussions

Re: (ITS#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
by jvcelak＠redhat.com 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Hello, On Tuesday 02 of October 2012 14:01:16, hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Let's be very clear. I'm not rejecting patches because they come from Red > Hat. Anyone can plainly see that we have accepted many patches from Red > Hat. I'm rejecting patches because the relevant code sucks, and when things > related to them break, the OpenLDAP Project takes the heat even though > we're not responsible for the breakage. There are CVEs issued against > OpenLDAP security holes, even though the bugs are in MozNSS, not OpenLDAP. > I wouldn't have a problem with these patches if they actually worked, or if > Red Hat took the blame when they don't work, but that's not what has > happened. Instead we get CVE-2012-2668. We get users asking why their TLS > connections don't work after upgrading from one RedHat release to the next. > We get a pointless support burden because users say "we have to run the Red > Hat packages otherwise they won't support us" but then they don't actually > ask Red Hat for support, they ask us. Sometimes a security bug appears. We are not flawless. I do not know how we should take the blame. The CVE clearly stated that this is a problem only with Mozilla NSS backend. Which is used only by Fedora, RHEL, and their derivates. And the affected code was from RH, anyone can see it in VCS. Tell me what did you expect us to do and we can try to do it next time. If our users have a problem, they should first contact our support. Or create a bug in our issue tracker. We cannot prevent them from contacting upstream. And you can always say them 'Sorry, we cannot help you.' if the question is not general enough or the problem depends on our build. I understand that you don't want to support older OpenLDAP versions, builds with non-default libraries, etc. But the users will rather use the package from their distribution, instead of compiling it by themselves. And we cannot support users' builds, because we do not have the sources and the build environment under control. And we cannot rebase the packages freely. On Tuesday 02 of October 2012 14:18:49, hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Back to this point - surely OpenLDAP libldap is not the only piece of > software that expects to use OpenSSL-style cipher suite names. libldap is > certainly not the best place to put this translation. I'm not sure about that. We tried to go a "compatible" way with OpenLDAP, don't know about other projects. I will take a look. Jan

1 0

Re: (ITS#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
by hyc＠symas.com 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Jan Vcelak wrote: >> Of course, cipher suite enumeration in MozNSS is possible. But >> translation from OpenSSL names without the translation table would be >> very messy. I still think this is a better solution. Back to this point - surely OpenLDAP libldap is not the only piece of software that expects to use OpenSSL-style cipher suite names. libldap is certainly not the best place to put this translation. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, 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#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
by hyc＠symas.com 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Jan Vcelak wrote: > Of course, cipher suite enumeration in MozNSS is possible. But > translation from OpenSSL names without the translation table would be > very messy. I still think this is a better solution. > >> There were 11 MozNSS patches in 2.4.32. Looks like 5 more waiting for >> review >> here, plus 2 already committed for 2.4.33. We will not accept patches >> that >> require constant revisiting every time NSS updates. This is too much. >> No more. > > I'm sending one patch per change. And looking at the patches, I do not > think I'm introducing new bugs. It's mostly a fixes for issues present > in the code before I started sending my first patches. And be sure that > I'm testing the TLS heavily before submitting anything. > > I do not understand why you strictly refuse anything which comes from > Fedora or Red Hat. We decided to use MozNSS and you can disagree. We > still want to fix the problems with that backend to use it without any > pain. Sorry, I really do not feel like your feedback is constructive. Let's be very clear. I'm not rejecting patches because they come from Red Hat. Anyone can plainly see that we have accepted many patches from Red Hat. I'm rejecting patches because the relevant code sucks, and when things related to them break, the OpenLDAP Project takes the heat even though we're not responsible for the breakage. There are CVEs issued against OpenLDAP security holes, even though the bugs are in MozNSS, not OpenLDAP. I wouldn't have a problem with these patches if they actually worked, or if Red Hat took the blame when they don't work, but that's not what has happened. Instead we get CVE-2012-2668. We get users asking why their TLS connections don't work after upgrading from one RedHat release to the next. We get a pointless support burden because users say "we have to run the Red Hat packages otherwise they won't support us" but then they don't actually ask Red Hat for support, they ask us. It may seem like this feedback is not constructive, but to me it is not productive for the Project to support a crypto library that was designed for use in a web browser and still assumes that its callers always have a human user sitting in front. Bugs like #7316 shouldn't ever have happened. None of this should come as a surprise to you since I've been stating this from the very first moment MozNSS support was ever mentioned. The NSS crypto architecture was never suited for any setting other than a single user application. It is completely inappropriate for use as a multi-user system library, or in a headless server environment. That was true 4 years ago when we first started working with it and it clearly hasn't improved by today. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, 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#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
by jvcelak＠redhat.com 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

> This is completely the wrong approach. There is no way you should be > putting > hardcoded constants in libldap that are tied to specific MozNSS > versions. The > MozNSS library needs to provide a cipher enumerator API. Let me quote OpenLDAP documentation: | When using Mozilla NSS, the OpenSSL cipher suite specifications are | used and translated into the format used internally by Mozilla NSS. And FAQ page about Mozilla NSS in OpenLDAP: | OpenLDAP can use Mozilla NSS as the TLS/SSL implementation. If you | previously used OpenLDAP with OpenSSL, and have certificate files, | cipher suites, and other TLS settings specified in your configuration | files, those settings should work exactly the same way with Mozilla | NSS - OpenLDAP with Mozilla NSS knows how to read those settings, | files, etc. and apply them in the same way. The goal is that you | will not be able to tell you are using OpenLDAP with Mozilla NSS | because it will work exactly the same as OpenLDAP with OpenSSL. Which means that if we decided at some point to make the MozNSS layer compatible with OpenSSL, we have to keep up with it now. Of course, cipher suite enumeration in MozNSS is possible. But translation from OpenSSL names without the translation table would be very messy. I still think this is a better solution. > There were 11 MozNSS patches in 2.4.32. Looks like 5 more waiting for > review > here, plus 2 already committed for 2.4.33. We will not accept patches > that > require constant revisiting every time NSS updates. This is too much. > No more. I'm sending one patch per change. And looking at the patches, I do not think I'm introducing new bugs. It's mostly a fixes for issues present in the code before I started sending my first patches. And be sure that I'm testing the TLS heavily before submitting anything. I do not understand why you strictly refuse anything which comes from Fedora or Red Hat. We decided to use MozNSS and you can disagree. We still want to fix the problems with that backend to use it without any pain. Sorry, I really do not feel like your feedback is constructive. Jan

1 0

Re: (ITS#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
by hyc＠symas.com 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

jvcelak(a)redhat.com wrote: > Full_Name: Jan Vcelak > Version: git master > OS: Linux > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/jvcelak-20120823-moznss-update-list-of-ciph… > Submission from: (NULL) (209.132.186.34) > > > I'm attaching patch which updates the list of supported cipher suites for > Mozilla NSS backend. All ciphers currently implemented in NSS (3.13.5) are > included. Recall what I said in ITS#7388 about an endless stream of patches to an unmaintainable code base... This is completely the wrong approach. There is no way you should be putting hardcoded constants in libldap that are tied to specific MozNSS versions. The MozNSS library needs to provide a cipher enumerator API. There were 11 MozNSS patches in 2.4.32. Looks like 5 more waiting for review here, plus 2 already committed for 2.4.33. We will not accept patches that require constant revisiting every time NSS updates. This is too much. No more. Tell the NSS guys to fix their design, or tell Red Hat to use a crypto library that actually works for the intended purpose. MozNSS clearly doesn't. > Default ciphers are selected on the same basis as in OpenSSL. > NULL/EXPORT/LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH classification is taken from OpenSSL as well. > > > The attached file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the modifications to > OpenLDAP Software represented in the following patch(es) were developed by Red > Hat. Red Hat has not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. > I, Jan Vcelak am authorized by Red Hat, my employer, to release this work under > the following terms. > > Red Hat hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP Software (and only > these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these modifications may be > freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution > and/or other notice. > > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, 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#7400) Memberof and Syncrepl incompatibility
by hyc＠symas.com 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

arun s wrote: > Hi, > Yes, I am able to reproduce the issue with 2.4.32 > > Making sense of the logs for the exact reproduction is hard since it needs a > lot of operations in a short time. But this will probably help: > > 1. At the start of the test, the group temp_group existed. > > 2. I created a user temp_user and added temp_user to temp_group. > > 3. During replication, the group was replicated first and I got an error 32 > (NO_SUCH_OBJECT) when it tried to modify the memberOf of the temp_user object > (This does not exist in the readslave yet). > > 4. The temp_user object was replicated next, and as you see, querying it does > show a memberOf attribute, proving that this field was replicated. (Note that > I have run OpenLDAP with debug as -1 and verified that the replicated data has > the memberOf field in it. I can provide this too if needed.) I see. The current code drops the memberOf attribute if it was not explicitly requested in the search. However, by default the consumer requests "+" which means "all operational attributes" and so slapd considers memberOf to have been requested. We need to reconsider this aspect of the design. > > 5. The more serious problem occurs when the sequence is reversed and the group > has been deleted as a last operation - The user is replicated first, but since > the group is deleted, it is never replicated and a stale memberOf entry stays > with the user. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, 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#7400) Memberof and Syncrepl incompatibility
by arunkumar_1123＠yahoo.com 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

---872237384-2137566121-1349092304=:39209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=0AYes, I am able to reproduce the issue with 2.4.32=0A=0A=0AMaking sens= e of the logs for the exact reproduction is hard since it needs a lot of op= erations in a short time. But this will probably help:=0A=0A1. At the start= of the test, the group temp_group existed.=0A=0A2. I created a user temp_u= ser and added temp_user to temp_group.=0A=0A3. During replication, the grou= p was replicated first and I got an error 32 (NO_SUCH_OBJECT) when it tried= to modify the memberOf of the temp_user object (This does not exist in the= readslave yet).=0A=0A4. The temp_user object was replicated next, and as y= ou see, querying it does show a memberOf attribute, proving that this field= was replicated. (Note that I have run OpenLDAP with debug as -1 and verifi= ed that the replicated data has the memberOf field in it. I can provide thi= s too if needed.)=0A=0A5. The more serious problem occurs when the sequence= is reversed and the group has been deleted as a last operation - The user = is replicated first, but since the group is deleted, it is never replicated= and a stale memberOf entry stays with the user.=0A=0A=0ALOGS:=0A=0A5069157= c syncrepl_message_to_entry: rid=3D179 DN: ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3D= example,dc=3Dcom, UUID: 31090ab1-f8a7-4363-83c2-c0ac0d3918d4=0A5069157c syn= crepl_entry: rid=3D179 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENTRY(LDAP_SYNC_ADD)=0A5069157c sync= repl_entry: rid=3D179 inserted UUID 31090ab1-f8a7-4363-83c2-c0ac0d3918d4=0A= 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 be_search (0)=0A5069157c syncrepl_entry:= rid=3D179 ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom=0A5069157c slap= _queue_csn: queing 0x4270c730 20121001040100.779862Z#000000#000#000000=0A50= 69157c slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0xfa035c0 20121001040100.779862Z#= 000000#000#000000=0A5069157c conn=3D-1 op=3D0: memberof_value_modify DN=3D"= uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom" add memberOf=3D"ou=3Dtemp_group,ou= =3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom" failed err=3D32=0A5069157c syncrepl_entry: = rid=3D179 be_modify ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom (0)=0A= 5069157c syncrepl_message_to_entry: rid=3D179 DN: uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexam= ple,dc=3Dcom, UUID: 748bd1a9-6be3-450b-809c-5ea692aa073c=0A5069157c syncrep= l_entry: rid=3D179 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENTRY(LDAP_SYNC_ADD)=0A5069157c syncrepl= _entry: rid=3D179 inserted UUID 748bd1a9-6be3-450b-809c-5ea692aa073c=0A5069= 157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 be_search (0)=0A5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid= =3D179 uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom=0A5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid= =3D179 be_add uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom (0)=0A=0AThe object tem= p_user:=0A=0Adn: uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom=0AmemberOf: ou=3Dtem= p_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom=0A=0A=0AWhat is interesting is tha= t in this case, the memberOf field being replicated actually protects the s= lave from incorrect data as the temp_user entry was not present at the time= the group got replicated (The user entry was the second entry in the repli= cation order). On the other hand, a reversed path during replication causes= the mentioned bug.=0A=0AThanks=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________= =0A From: Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com>=0ATo: arunkumar_1123(a)yahoo.com =0ACc: = openldap-its(a)openldap.org =0ASent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 8:51 PM=0ASubj= ect: Re: (ITS#7400) Memberof and Syncrepl incompatibility=0A =0Aarunkumar_1= 123(a)yahoo.com wrote:=0A> Full_Name: Arunkumar shanmugam=0A> Version: 2.4.29= =0A> OS: rhel5=0A> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/=0A> Submission fro= m: (NULL) (203.83.248.32)=0A>=0A>=0A> Hi,=0A>=0A> I'm currently using Openl= dap 2.4.29 to model an Authorization platform. I=0A> noticed some inconsist= ent behavior with syncrepl and memberof overlays.=0A=0ADoes this issue occu= r with the current release, 2.4.32?=0A>=0A> The issue happens as follows:= =0A>=0A> If I Create groups with a large number of members and delete them = in quick=0A> succession on the writemaster, the data replicated to the read= slave is=0A> incorrect, in particular, the memberof fields of the User obje= cts.=0A>=0A> This seems to happen because the memberof field is getting rep= licated to the=0A> slave nodes, although the documentation states that it s= houldn't.=0A=0AIndeed. Do you have debug logs showing the replication traff= ic, and showing =0Athat the memberof attribute got replicated?=0A=0A> While= =0A> replicating, the User object is replicated inclusive of the memberof f= ields, but=0A> by the time the syncrepl search comes to the group object, i= t has already been=0A> deleted, and hence not replicated. This leaves a dan= gling memberof field in the=0A> read slave instance.=0A>=0A> I was wonderin= g if anyone has faced this issues (I did not see any ITS related=0A> to thi= s), and has a workaround.=0A>=0A> Thanks,=0A> Arunkumar=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A-- = =0A=A0 -- Howard Chu=0A=A0 CTO, Symas Corp.=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www= .symas.com=0A=A0 Director, Highland Sun=A0 =A0 http://highlandsun.com/hyc/= =0A=A0 Chief Architect, OpenLDAP=A0 http://www.openldap.org/project/ ---872237384-2137566121-1349092304=:39209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti= mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div>Hi,</div><div style=3D"colo= r: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-size: 13px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-se= rif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; ">=09Yes, I am able to reproduce the issue with = 2.4.32 </div><div style=3D"color: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-size: 13p= x; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: transparent= ; font-style: normal; "> Making = sense of the logs for the exact reproduction is hard since it needs a lot o= f operations in a short time. But this will probably help: 1. At the = start of the test, the group temp_group existed. 2. I created a user t= emp_user and added temp_user to temp_group. 3. During replication, the group= was replicated first and I got an error 32 (NO_SUCH_OBJECT) when it tried = to modify the memberOf of the temp_user object (This does not exist in the = readslave yet). <span= style=3D"color: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif= ; font-size: 13px; ">4. The temp_user object was replicated next, and as yo= u see, querying it does show a memberOf attribute, proving that this field = was replicated. (Note that I have run OpenLDAP with debug as -1 and verifie= d that the replicated data has the memberOf field in it. I can provide this = too if needed.) <span= style=3D"color: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif= ; font-size: 13px; ">5. The more serious problem occurs when the sequence i= s reversed and the group has been deleted as a last operation - The user is= replicated first, but since the group is deleted, it is never replicated a= nd a stale memberOf entry stays with the user. LOG= S: 5069157c syncrepl_message_to_entry: rid=3D179 DN: ou=3Dtemp_group,o= u=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom, UUID: 31090ab1-f8a7-4363-83c2-c0ac0d3918d4= 5069157c syncrepl_= entry: rid=3D179 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENTRY(LDAP_SYNC_ADD) 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 inserted UUID 31090a= b1-f8a7-4363-83c2-c0ac0d3918d4 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 be_search (0) 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D17= 9 ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom 5069157c slap_queue_csn: queing 0x4270c730 = 20121001040100.779862Z#000000#000#000000 5069157c slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0xfa035c0 20121001040100.77986= 2Z#000000#000#000000 5069157c conn=3D-1 op=3D0: memberof_value_modify DN=3D"uid=3Dtemp_user,dc= =3Dexample,dc=3Dcom" add memberOf=3D"ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgroup,dc=3Dexampl= e,dc=3Dcom" failed err=3D32 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 be_modify ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3D= group,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom (0) 5069157c syncrepl= _message_to_entry: rid=3D179 DN: uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom, UUI= D: 748bd1a9-6be3-450b-809c-5ea692aa073c <span= style=3D"color: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif= ; font-size: 13px; ">5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 LDAP_RES_SEARCH_ENT= RY(LDAP_SYNC_ADD) 5= 069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 inserted UUID 748bd1a9-6be3-450b-809c-5ea= 692aa073c 5069157c syncrepl_entry: = rid=3D179 be_search (0) 5069157c syncrepl_entry: rid=3D179 uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dc= om 5069157c syncrep= l_entry: rid=3D179 be_add uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom (0)<= br style=3D"color: rgb(69, 69, 69); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-ser= if; font-size: 13px; "> Th= e object temp_user: dn: uid=3Dtemp_user,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom memberOf: ou=3Dtemp_group,ou=3Dgro= up,dc=3Dexample,dc=3Dcom What is interesting is that in this case, t= he memberOf field being replicated actually protects the slave from incorre= ct data as the temp_user entry was not present at the time the group got re= plicated (The user entry was the second entry in the replication order). On= the other hand, a reversed path during replication causes the mentioned bu= g. Thanks</div><div> </div> <div style=3D"font-famil= y: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "> <div st= yle=3D"font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size:= 12pt; "> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=3D"1"= > From: Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com&= gt; To: arunkumar_1123= @yahoo.com Cc: openlda= p-its(a)openldap.org Sent:<= /b> Sunday, 30 September 2012 8:51 PM Subject: Re: (ITS#7400) Memberof and Syncrepl incompatibili= ty </div> <a ymailto=3D"mailto:arunkumar_1123@yahoo.com" hr= ef=3D"mailto:arunkumar_1123@yahoo.com">arunkumar_1123(a)yahoo.com</a> wrote:<= br>> Full_Name: Arunkumar shanmugam > Version: 2.4.29 > OS: = rhel5 > URL: <a href=3D"ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/" target=3D"_= blank">ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/</a> > Submission from: (NULL)= (203.83.248.32) > > > Hi, > > I'm currently = using Openldap 2.4.29 to model an Authorization platform. I > noticed= some inconsistent behavior with syncrepl and memberof overlays. Does thi= s issue occur with the current release, 2.4.32? > > The issue h= appens as follows: > > If I Create groups with a large number o= f members and delete them in quick > succession on the writemaster, t= he data replicated to the readslave is > incorrect, in particular, th= e memberof fields of the User objects. > > This seems to happen= because the memberof field is getting replicated to the > slave node= s, although the documentation states that it shouldn't. Indeed. Do y= ou have debug logs showing the replication traffic, and showing that th= e memberof attribute got replicated? > While > replicating,= the User object is replicated inclusive of the memberof fields, but &gt= ; by the time the syncrepl search comes to the group object, it has already= been > deleted, and hence not replicated. This leaves a dangling memberof field in the > read slave instance. > &gt= ; I was wondering if anyone has faced this issues (I did not see any ITS re= lated > to this), and has a workaround. > > Thanks, &g= t; Arunkumar > > --   -- Howard Chu &nb= sp; CTO, Symas Corp.          <a href=3D"http://= www.symas.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.symas.com</a>   Direc= tor, Highland Sun    <a href=3D"http://highlandsun.com/hyc/" tar= get=3D"_blank">http://highlandsun.com/hyc/</a>   Chief Architect, = OpenLDAP  <a href=3D"http://www.openldap.org/project/" target=3D"_blan= k">http://www.openldap.org/project/</a> </div> </div> </div></= body></html> ---872237384-2137566121-1349092304=:39209--

1 0

Re: (ITS#7406) Search with scope for newer entries don't work
by a.stefanello＠mclink.eu 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

Thanks, my 2 mirror (Master-Master) server say : ebuild U ] net-nds/openldap-2.4.30::gentoo [2.4.23-r1::MC-link-NOC] upgrading to 2.4.30 doesn't cause problems , its correct ? Can i upgrade quietly or i have to do some pre-operations ? Thanks Il giorno 28/set/2012, alle ore 18:57, Quanah Gibson-Mount ha scritto: > --On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:04 AM +0000 a.stefanello(a)mclink.eu wrote: > >> Full_Name: Andrea Stefanello >> Version: 2.4.23-r1 > > Use a current openldap build. > > --Quanah > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Sr. Member of Technical Staff > Zimbra, Inc > A Division of VMware, Inc. > -------------------- > Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7400) Memberof and Syncrepl incompatibility
by hyc＠symas.com 30 Sep '12

30 Sep '12

arunkumar_1123(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Full_Name: Arunkumar shanmugam > Version: 2.4.29 > OS: rhel5 > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (203.83.248.32) > > > Hi, > > I'm currently using Openldap 2.4.29 to model an Authorization platform. I > noticed some inconsistent behavior with syncrepl and memberof overlays. Does this issue occur with the current release, 2.4.32? > > The issue happens as follows: > > If I Create groups with a large number of members and delete them in quick > succession on the writemaster, the data replicated to the readslave is > incorrect, in particular, the memberof fields of the User objects. > > This seems to happen because the memberof field is getting replicated to the > slave nodes, although the documentation states that it shouldn't. Indeed. Do you have debug logs showing the replication traffic, and showing that the memberof attribute got replicated? > While > replicating, the User object is replicated inclusive of the memberof fields, but > by the time the syncrepl search comes to the group object, it has already been > deleted, and hence not replicated. This leaves a dangling memberof field in the > read slave instance. > > I was wondering if anyone has faced this issues (I did not see any ITS related > to this), and has a workaround. > > Thanks, > Arunkumar > > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

ITS#7408 published: SECURITY: OpenLDAP multimaster out of sync
by openldap-its＠OpenLDAP.org 30 Sep '12

30 Sep '12

Private ITS#7408 is now publicly readable URL: http://www.OpenLDAP.org/its/?findid=7408

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs