openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20958 discussions

(ITS#4881) ldapsearch, SSL and segmentation fault
by andrej.groups＠gmail.com 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

Full_Name: Andrej Ricnik Version: ldapsearch 2.3.21 OS: Slackware 11 URL: Submission from: (NULL) (138.235.105.2) I'm trying to use ldapsearch against Novell eDir 8.7.3.9 (on Solaris) which works fine when used w/o encryption. If I use the self-signed Cert created on the eDir server ldapsearch segfaults. This works fine (returns the expected 46 DNs): ldapsearch -D cn=wpsbind,ou=wcm,ou=systemusers,ou=users,o=myorg -W -h dev4.kdc.myorg.org -x -s sub -LLL '(cn=*)' This one segfaults after the 45th DN: ldapsearch -ZZ -D cn=wpsbind,ou=wcm,ou=systemusers,ou=users,o=myorg -W -h dev4.kdc.myorg.org -x -s sub -LLL '(cn=*)' It looks similar to ITN# 889 ...

1 0

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by ando＠sys-net.it 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

vargok(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Additionally, just FYI, it appears that the regular/standard OpenLDAP > (at least as of 2.3.32) BDB-based backend returns > "userCertificate;binary" just fine (and, actually, all the time, even > when requesting "userCertificate"). I would've expected them to > behave the same way. Right. Time permitting, I'll check why back-sql behaves differently and, in case, how to fix it. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. 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#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by vargok＠yahoo.com 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

Additionally, just FYI, it appears that the regular/standard OpenLDAP (at least as of 2.3.32) BDB-based backend returns "userCertificate;binary" just fine (and, actually, all the time, even when requesting "userCertificate"). I would've expected them to behave the same way. ----- Original Message ---- From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> To: Kevin Vargo <vargok(a)yahoo.com> Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:05:52 PM Subject: Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es) Kevin Vargo wrote: > However, there remains a problem: other LDAP Servers appear to return > the 'attribute-name' requested (userCertificate;binary::) to describe > the data. Now that the data is being returned, it's being returned > without the ";binary" option -- as 'userCertificate::'. Per > ITS#3113, ";binary" is obsoleted? To be honest, I'm not sure I have ever clearly understood that ";binary" issue, and I don't have time to dig out the documentation, learn about it, and check the code, since the whole stuff seems to be obsolete. > Is there a compatibility mode that can be optioned to support this? None that I know of. > Obsoleted and back-wards compatibility being in conflict..... I think compatibility with obsolete stuff is something that may easily get in conflict with open source, volunteer developed software. Volunteers tend to concentrate scarce resources on important things, and preserving compatibility with obsolete (often broken) stuff is first of all a waste of scarce resources, and second, but not least, reduces pressure on obsolete (broken) software makers, which typically are not volunteers but actually get paid for (obsolete/broken stuff). Having said this, you may find volunteers that, pushed by their own needs like to spend time supporting obsolete/broken stuff for the simple reason they need it. > i.e. > is there a way to say "return the attribute by name-requested instead > of schema-name?" No. This question has been raised many times, and the answer has always been like that. All you could do is hack slap_send_search_entry() in servers/slapd/result.c. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. 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 ------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

1 0

(ITS#4880) HAVE_POSIX_TERMIOS -> HAVE_TERMIOS_H
by ed＠fxq.nl 18 Mar '07

18 Mar '07

Full_Name: Ed Schouten Version: 2.3.x and 2.4.x OS: FreeBSD URL: Submission from: (NULL) (83.180.2.78) The FreeBSD folks are planning on removing the old <sgtty.h> interface from their operating system. On FreeBSD, OpenLDAP still uses this header file, though there is some nice termios code in the source. It isn't used on FreeBSD at the moment, because the code doesn't use the same naming as the definition made by autoconf. A simple %s/HAVE_POSIX_TERMIOS/HAVE_TERMIOS_H/ on the sourcetree fixes this.

1 0

(ITS#4879) URL parse/unparse troubles
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 17 Mar '07

17 Mar '07

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: HEAD OS: Linux URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.202.105) Submitted by: hallvard Here are some URLs parsing/building bugs in libldap/url.c. Some may be design bugs. Possibly some fixes will need backwards bug-compatibility. I show URLs converted from string to LDAPURLDesc format with ldap_url_parse(), back to string format with ldap_url_desc2str() when the result differs from the original, back to LDAPURLDesc... ================ The url.c Novell kludge does not work (for the example URL). If the bug is old and nobody has complained, maybe it should be removed. If it's fixed instead, note that the code looks like it'll handle Novell URLs with '/' in components after hostport: ldap_url_parse_ext() does strchr( url, '/' ) very early to find the end of the hostport. ldap://111.222.333.444:389??cn=abc,o=company -> error 5 (LDAP_URL_ERR_BADURL) Example URL without port number: ldap://111.222.333.444??cn=abc,o=company -> host "111.222.333.444??cn=abc,o=company", DN NULL -> ldap://111.222.333.444??cn=abc,o=company:389/??base ================ ldap_url_desc2str() outputs IPv6 host addresses as "addr" rather than "[addr]". (LDAPURLDesc does not contain the '[]'s in .lud_host, nor any flag which says it's an IPv6 host address). I don't know the syntax of such addresses, but I seem to remember they contains ':'s. If so the parser could fail if an IPv6 address does not contains ':', and the URL builder could test for ':' to determine if there should be [] around the host part. Also, what does stuff between the ']' and ':port' mean? Should anything be allowed there? ldap://[::1]what's this:222/ -> host "::1", port 222 -> ldap://::1:222/??base -> error 5 (LDAP_URL_ERR_BADURL) ================ Converting "%00" to char* should return an error, since the char* will not match the source URL: ldapi://a%00b/cn=d%00e -> host "a", DN "cn=d" -> ldapi://a/cn=d??base ================ The RFCs 4516/2255 hostport part has grammar [host [":" port]], but ldap_url_desc2str() produces [host][":" port]. ldap:// -> host NULL, port 389 -> ldap://:389/??base That's OK as an ldap_url_parse() OpenLDAP extension, but not as ldap_url_desc2str() output given to non-OpenLDAP applications. ================ While I'm writing, I wonder if OpenLDAP 2.4 could omit defaults and final "?"s from the ldap_url_desc2str() output. E.g. ldap:// would become ldap:// and not ldap://:389/??base. But maybe we get into trouble if ldap.conf has another port or something. ================ ldapi URL (un)parsing has several problems: ldap_url_parse() always treats ':' as a host:port separator. Thus one can produce an ldapi LDAPURLDesc with a meaningless port. However ldap_url_desc2str() does not URL-escape ':', and it also takes port!=0 to mean it is not an ldapi URL and needs no '/'-escaping. Similarly filenames with initial '[' do not work. ldapi://%2Ftmp%2Ffoo%3A222/ -> host "/tmp/foo:222" (correct) -> ldapi://%2Ftmp%2Ffoo:222/??base -> host "/tmp/foo", port 222 -> ldapi:///tmp/foo:222/??base -> host NULL, DN "tmp/foo:222/" ldapi://%2Ftmp%2Ffoo:000/ -> host "/tmp/foo" -> ldapi://%2Ftmp%2Ffoo/??base ldapi://%2Ftmp%2Ffoo:bar/ -> error 5 (LDAP_URL_ERR_BADURL) ==== The current implementation would handle some non-Unix ldapi filenames wrong. (They'll need well-defined URL-escaping rules if they get implemented, so it might as well be fixed now.) Of course these can also be strange Unix relative filenames... Windows-like filenames: ldapi://C%3A%2Fldapi/ -> host "C:/ldapi" -> ldapi://C:%2Fldapi/??base -> error 5 (LDAP_URL_ERR_BADURL) Tops-20-like filenames resemble IPv6 addresses (not that I expect to port OpenLDAP to Tops-20:-) ldapi://[ldap.var.run]ldapi/ -> host "ldap.var.run" -> ldapi://ldap.var.run/??base URL-escaping the '[' and ']' does not help; the '[' is lost: ldapi://%5Bldap.var.run%5Dldapi/ -> host "ldap.var.run]ldapi" -> ldapi://ldap.var.run%5Dldapi/??base

1 0

Re: (ITS#4872) Non-portable comparison in wait4msg() (result.c) causes infinite loop
by ando＠sys-net.it 17 Mar '07

17 Mar '07

There might be more about this; in daemon.c, difftime() is used to compute the difference between two time_t, but the result is assigned to a time_t. Maybe a negative value cannot be obtained, but in any case that cast would likely be incorrect as well in systems where time_t is unsigned. I'm re-opening this bug. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. 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#4878) removal of duplicate variables in slapd
by ando＠sys-net.it 17 Mar '07

17 Mar '07

bret.lambert(a)gmail.com wrote: > Unnecessary duplicate variables using the same name have been removed with this > patch. > > Found via lint(1) on OpenBSD. Fixed. Thanks, p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. 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#4878) removal of duplicate variables in slapd
by bret.lambert＠gmail.com 17 Mar '07

17 Mar '07

Full_Name: bret lambert Version: HEAD OS: OpenBSD URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/bret-lambert-070317.patch.1 Submission from: (NULL) (70.179.123.124) Unnecessary duplicate variables using the same name have been removed with this patch. Found via lint(1) on OpenBSD.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by ando＠sys-net.it 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

Kevin Vargo wrote: > So, in ad.c [ad_inlist], the AttributeDescription (*desc) does not > have it's flags set 'properly.' That is, apparently within that > structure there are flags and tags, during the parsing of the schema, > the flags and tags get set properly (same file [slap_bv2ad]): > desc.ad_flags |= SLAP_DESC_BINARY; > > That means that, in ad_inlist, the desc's name still has ";binary" in > it, and no flags set. I find that if I map this condition as an > entry in the if/else cascade -- right after checking the flags, but > before the if-fail on flag compare -- the data is properly returned. > (I'll generate a patch, if that's an appropriate thing to do/place to > do it.) Not sure I understood - waiting for your patch... > However, there remains a problem: other LDAP Servers appear to return > the 'attribute-name' requested (userCertificate;binary::) to describe > the data. Now that the data is being returned, it's being returned > without the ";binary" option -- as 'userCertificate::'. Per > ITS#3113, ";binary" is obsoleted? To be honest, I'm not sure I have ever clearly understood that ";binary" issue, and I don't have time to dig out the documentation, learn about it, and check the code, since the whole stuff seems to be obsolete. > Is there a compatibility mode that can be optioned to support this? None that I know of. > Obsoleted and back-wards compatibility being in conflict..... I think compatibility with obsolete stuff is something that may easily get in conflict with open source, volunteer developed software. Volunteers tend to concentrate scarce resources on important things, and preserving compatibility with obsolete (often broken) stuff is first of all a waste of scarce resources, and second, but not least, reduces pressure on obsolete (broken) software makers, which typically are not volunteers but actually get paid for (obsolete/broken stuff). Having said this, you may find volunteers that, pushed by their own needs like to spend time supporting obsolete/broken stuff for the simple reason they need it. > i.e. > is there a way to say "return the attribute by name-requested instead > of schema-name?" No. This question has been raised many times, and the answer has always been like that. All you could do is hack slap_send_search_entry() in servers/slapd/result.c. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. 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#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es)
by vargok＠yahoo.com 14 Mar '07

14 Mar '07

So, in ad.c [ad_inlist], the AttributeDescription (*desc) does not have it's flags set 'properly.' That is, apparently within that structure there are flags and tags, during the parsing of the schema, the flags and tags get set properly (same file [slap_bv2ad]): desc.ad_flags |= SLAP_DESC_BINARY; That means that, in ad_inlist, the desc's name still has ";binary" in it, and no flags set. I find that if I map this condition as an entry in the if/else cascade -- right after checking the flags, but before the if-fail on flag compare -- the data is properly returned. (I'll generate a patch, if that's an appropriate thing to do/place to do it.) However, there remains a problem: other LDAP Servers appear to return the 'attribute-name' requested (userCertificate;binary::) to describe the data. Now that the data is being returned, it's being returned without the ";binary" option -- as 'userCertificate::'. Per ITS#3113, ";binary" is obsoleted? Is there a compatibility mode that can be optioned to support this? Obsoleted and back-wards compatibility being in conflict..... i.e. is there a way to say "return the attribute by name-requested instead of schema-name?" ----- Original Message ---- From: Kevin Vargo <vargok(a)yahoo.com> To: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:15:26 AM Subject: Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es) >----- Original Message ---- >From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> >To: vargok(a)yahoo.com >Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org >Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 4:52:04 PM >Subject: Re: (ITS#4868) Binary Attribute Patch(es) > > >> These address the use of Binary-valued attributes (#3113, #3386): >> >> For example, inetOrgPerson.userCertificate is usually transferred with the >> ";binary" directive. ";binary" is not handled by OpenLDAP/Back-SQL. > >Well, the solution you propose is not correct, since you are altering >schema data, which is supposed to be read-only. In any case, the point is: Yeah; I think the actual submission found the ";binary" and reset the reference to it, not actually doing anything to it. >- if we decide that back-sql should ignore tags, then the solution >consists in using the canonical name of the underlying AttributeType >when looking up data; > >- however, this would destroy the possibility to use different storages >for differently encoded data; for example, a column for "cn;lang-en" and >a column for "cn;lang-jp". I don't know how many users would prefer one >solution over another, but in any case either we find a solution that >preserves both capabilities or we choose one. I'd vote in favor of >ignoring ";binary" since it's obsolete and related to transport only, >but in favor of honoring language tags. Sounds great to me. I just want support for ";binary" both on storage and retrieval to be supported. I'll accept that it's obsolete -- I'll also put forth that a lot of things still use it (e.g. Lotus Domino v6). >> There remains an issue with selecting attributes using, e.g., >> "userCertificate;binary" -- nothing is returned. Someone with a better >> understanding of the attribute-processing method would be much more effective in >> terms of finding the correct place to remove the ";binary" from the >> "attribute-name." (i.e. "userCertificate;binary" is NOT the attribute-name; >> "userCertificate" is the attribute-name, ";binary" is a transport directive (see >> #3113). > >In fact, "userCertificate;binary" is the attribute description. The >attribute name is in ad_type->sat_cname. And, in fact, none of what I did appears to have been sufficient. I'm still looking at why selecting "userCertificate;binary" as part of an ldapsearch attribute-list doesn't pull the data. "userCertificate" does. The issue appears to be related to the ad_inlist verification on the search-supplied attribute -- "userCertificate;binary" doesn't resolve. If you know where I can look to figure this out, that would help. I've been through some areas and not found exactly where just yet. Thanks for your assistance. Kevin Vargo ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

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