openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21509 discussions

[Issue 10276] New: crash using pcache overlay on mdb backend
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Oct '24

29 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10276 Issue ID: 10276 Summary: crash using pcache overlay on mdb backend Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: chris.paul(a)rexconsulting.net Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1038 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1038&action=edit backtrace When using the pcache overlay with a local mdb backend, slapd crashes. The intention is to use pcache to reduce lookup times for dynamic (dynlist) groups and memberOf values. GDB backtrace attached. Config available upon request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 9920] New: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '24

25 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9920 Issue ID: 9920 Summary: MDB_PAGE_FULL with master3 (encryption) because there is no room for the authentication data (MAC) Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Mac OS Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: info(a)parlepeuple.fr Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 915 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=915&action=edit proposed patch Hello, on master3, using the encryption at rest feature, I am testing as follow: - on a new named database, i set the encryption function with mdb_env_set_encrypt(env, encfunc, &enckey, 32) - note that I chose to have a size parameter (The size of authentication data in bytes, if any. Set this to zero for unauthenticated encryption mechanisms.) of 32 bytes. - I add 2 entries on the DB, trying to saturate the first page. I chose to add a key of 33 Bytes and a value of 1977 Bytes, so the size of each node is 2010 Bytes (obviously the 2 keys are different). - This passes and the DB has just one leaf_pages, no overflow_pages, no branch_pages, an a depth of 1. - If I add one byte to the values I insert (starting again from a blank DB), then , instead of seeing 2 overflow_pages, I get an error : MDB_PAGE_FULL. - this clearly should not have happened. - Here is some tracing : add to leaf page 2 index 0, data size 48 key size 7 [74657374646200] add to leaf page 3 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to branch page 5 index 0, data size 0 key size 0 [null] add to branch page 5 index 1, data size 0 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 0, data size 1978 key size 33 [000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000] add to leaf page 4 index 1, data size 1978 key size 33 [020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202] not enough room in page 4, got 1 ptrs upper-lower = 2020 - 2 = 2016 node size = 2020 Looking at the code, I understand that there is a problem at line 9005 : } else if (node_size + data->mv_size > mc->mc_txn->mt_env->me_nodemax) { where me_nodemax is incorrect, as it is not taking into account that some bytes will be needed for the MAC authentication code, which size is in env->me_esumsize. me_nodemax is calculated at line 5349: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ ) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); So I substract me_esumsize with a "- env->me_esumsize" here: env->me_nodemax = (((env->me_psize - PAGEHDRSZ - env->me_esumsize) / MDB_MINKEYS) & -2) - sizeof(indx_t); I also substract it from me_maxfree_1pg in the line above, and in pmax in line 10435. I do not know if my patch is correct, but it solves the issue. Maybe there are other places in the code where the me_esumsize should be substracted from the available size. By example, when calculating the number of overflow pages in OVPAGES, it does not take into account me_esumsize, but I think it is ok, because there is only one MAC for the entire set of OV pages, and there is room for it in the first OV page. See the attached proposed patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 40

[Issue 8149] nssov loginStatus doesn't play well with replication
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8149 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |hyc(a)openldap.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9982] New: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9982 Issue ID: 9982 Summary: Linker error when building with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: invokesus+openldap(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 942 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=942&action=edit Build log I'm encountering the following linker error when building from the master branch, with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS defined. /nix/store/jbnmj9fljgnfyc1iswnrpfhlkpnnwiii-binutils-2.39/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ber_sockbuf_io_udp' Seems to have been happening since https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/4a87d7aad200aaa91cb0cb8…. Attaching the full build log. Also, attaching in the next update, a patch to fix the error. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 8070] test023 failures
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8070 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=9596 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8677] back-sock segfaults on CONTINUE (database sock)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8677 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |hyc(a)openldap.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8677] back-sock segfaults on CONTINUE (database sock)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8677 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- • 66edd345 by Howard Chu at 2023-11-14T17:02:18+00:00 ITS#8677 back-sock: return error for CONTINUE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 5738] back-monitor: registering a new backend (via moduleload) should add the corresponding entry in cn=monitor
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5738 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |hyc(a)openldap.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10273] New: Unable to run multiple bitnami openldap containers with common shared volume
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10273 Issue ID: 10273 Summary: Unable to run multiple bitnami openldap containers with common shared volume Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.0 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: jvishwanath66(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- **Name and Version:** openldap2.6 **What architecture are you using?:** amd64 **What steps will reproduce the bug?** - Add custom ldif files under the /ldifs directory and create another container image named `localhost:32000/custom-openldap` - create a common directory that will be mounted to all the ldap containers (`/root/openldap`) Create multiple container images which are mounted to the same directory (`/root/openldap`) using the following command - Add custom ldif files under the /ldifs directory and create another container image named localhost:32000/custom-openldap - create a common directory that will be mounted to all the ldap containers (`/root/openldap`) Create multiple container images which are mounted to the same directory (`/root/openldap`) using the following command ``` docker run -d -e BITNAMI_DEBUG="true" -e LDAP_ADMIN_USERNAME="superuser" -e LDAP_BINDDN="cn=ldap_bind_user,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com" -e LDAP_ENABLE_TLS="no" -e LDAP_EXTRA_SCHEMAS="cosine,general-acl,my-permissions,my-roles,ppolicy,nis,inetorgperson" -e LDAP_ROOT="dc=example,dc=com" -e LDAP_SKIP_DEFAULT_TREE="yes" -e LDAP_URI="ldap://ldap-server-service.my-namespace.svc.cluster.local" -e USER_DESCRIPTION_MAX_LEN="100" -e USER_FIRST_AND_LAST_NAME_MAX_LEN="100" -e USER_NAME_MAX_LEN="100" -e LDAP_ADMIN_PASSWORD="admin123" -e LDAP_READONLY_USER_PASSWORD="admin123" -e proxyBindPassword="" -v /root/openldap:/bitnami/openldap localhost:32000/custom-openldap ``` - List container images using the docker ps command: ``` docker ps CONTAINER ID IMAGE COMMAND CREATED STATUS PORTS NAMES f77ef5455f5f localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 2 minutes ago Up 2 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp upbeat_raman 9cccd41f02d2 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 17 minutes ago Up 17 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp nostalgic_antonelli 5434761c9281 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 23 minutes ago Up 23 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp objective_mayer ca40ef1a68a2 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 26 minutes ago Up 26 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp angry_margulis ``` - Execute the following ldapsearch command in all the containers ``` ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 ``` **What is the expected behavior?** The expected behavior is that ldapsearch should work on all the pods correctly **What do you see instead?** Ldapsearch is working on one container image whereas on other container images, we see the following error ``` $ ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 # extended LDIF # # LDAPv3 # base <dc=example, dc=com> with scope subtree # filter: (objectclass=*) # requesting: ALL # # search result search: 2 result: 80 Other (e.g., implementation specific) error text: internal error # numResponses: 1 ``` I wanted to know whether it is feasible/possible to use the same mount point for multiple openldap containers. **Additional information** Following is the list of container images ``` $ docker ps CONTAINER ID IMAGE COMMAND CREATED STATUS PORTS NAMES f77ef5455f5f localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 2 minutes ago Up 2 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp upbeat_raman 9cccd41f02d2 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 17 minutes ago Up 17 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp nostalgic_antonelli 5434761c9281 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 23 minutes ago Up 23 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp objective_mayer ca40ef1a68a2 localhost:32000/custom-openldap "/opt/bitnami/script…" 26 minutes ago Up 26 minutes 1389/tcp, 1636/tcp angry_margulis ``` And following is the ldapsearch output on all the containers: f77ef5455f5f ``` $ docker exec -it f77ef5455f5f bash $ ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 # extended LDIF # # LDAPv3 # base <dc=example, dc=com> with scope subtree # filter: (objectclass=*) # requesting: ALL # # search result search: 2 result: 80 Other (e.g., implementation specific) error text: internal error # numResponses: 1 ``` 9cccd41f02d2: ``` $ ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 # extended LDIF # # LDAPv3 # base <dc=example, dc=com> with scope subtree # filter: (objectclass=*) # requesting: ALL # # search result search: 2 result: 80 Other (e.g., implementation specific) error text: internal error # numResponses: 1 ``` 5434761c9281: ``` $ ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 # extended LDIF # # LDAPv3 # base <dc=example, dc=com> with scope subtree # filter: (objectclass=*) # requesting: ALL # # example.com dn: dc=example,dc=com objectClass: top objectClass: domain dc: example # groups, example.com dn: ou=groups,dc=example,dc=com objectClass: top objectClass: organizationalUnit ou: groups ``` - ca40ef1a68a2 (Somehow LDAP bind failed on this container, there seems to be some environmental issue) ```$ ldapsearch -H ldap://localhost:1389 -b "dc=example, dc=com" -D "cn=superuser,dc=example,dc=com" -w admin123 ldap_sasl_bind(SIMPLE): Can't contact LDAP server (-1)``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 8047] TIMEOUT and NETWORK_TIMEOUT don't work properly with SSL
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Oct '24

22 Oct '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8047 --- Comment #13 from maxime.besson(a)worteks.com <maxime.besson(a)worteks.com> --- Hi Ondřej, your patch worked for me, TLS handshake timeout was properly applied in all (synchronous) combinations of: * unreachable network / unresponsive service * OpenSSL / GnuTLS * ldaps:// / ldap:// + StartTLS Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs