openldap-devel January 2007

openldap-devel@openldap.org

17 participants
22 discussions

syncrepl
by Howard Chu 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

ITS#4618, 4623, 4626 and 4703 all basically have to do with trying to use multiple replication contexts with a single provider. This is a behavior that the 2.3 syncprov implementation just wasn't designed for; it was meant to handle only a single context. Looking at the ideas in 2.2's syncrepl, it might have gone in the direction of solving these problems if it weren't weighed down by so many insurmountable design and implementation flaws. 2.2 probably tried to do too much too soon, and got waylaid by the devil in the details. At this point, this solution for multiple contexts presents itself: 1) We assign distinct searchbases to each context. 2) Every distinct source of changes must have its own unique rid. E.g., if a database is a provider for a context, it must have an rid. Every consumer within its namingContext must have their own rid's just as before. (The new requirement here is assigning rid's to providers that are masters of their data.) 3) Currently the provider hands a consumer a cookie consisting of the rid that the consumer supplied, plus a single contextCSN from the provider. This single contextCSN is inadequate for accurately capturing all of the changes that may come from multiple sources in a namingContext. Instead, the provider will send out a cookie consisting of multiple rid,CSN pairs - one for every rid of the provider's that resides in the consumer's search space. This is the only reliable way to make sure that all changes are tracked and propagated. This says that in general, rids should not need to be configured on consumers - they should be dictated solely by the providers. It may be a good idea to allow them to be configured on consumers as an override, but for now that seems unimportant. So: 1) the provider must have its own unique rid configured 2) the consumer's rid is optional 3) the provider must be told about all of the consumers living under it 4) the provider must aggregate all of the consumer cookies under it with its own context info when generating a cookie for its own consumers Currently slapd treats an entire database as read-only when it has a consumer configured on it. This raises the question of how to allow multiple consumers in a single context - should we allow multiple consumers per DB, as 2.2 tried (and failed) to do, or should we continue with the current approach of one consumer per DB, and use glue to collect multiple consumers under one roof? -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

3 9

slapo-dynlist desgin question(s)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Stanford is looking at implementing groups into our LDAP servers, and in particular, looking at using slapo-dynlist. However, it does not behave as I expected it to. Basically, it uses the credentials of whomever bound to determine the membership list. This means I would have to give access to a privileged attribute to those who wished to use groups, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. What I wanted to do, was specifically control the access to the group objects themselves. If an entity has access to the group object, they would then be able to see all current members of the group. I believe this would mean adding functionality to slapo-dynlist to where it uses the rootdn to perform the internal search instead of the credentials. Would it be possible to have this sort of addition? --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Developer ITS/Shared Application Services Stanford University GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html

3 34

GSS-SPNEGO Protocol Details
by Michael B Allen 30 Jan '07

30 Jan '07

Hello, I've implemented SASL binds for GSSAPI and GSS-SPNEGO using a Sockbuf_IO_Desc handler instead of libsasl. Everything works great but I've noticed some behavior from the server I'm using that is not consistent with the available documentation (RFC 2222 and draft-ietf-sasl-gssapi-03 by Melnikov). Would anyone happen to know where I might ask about GSS-SPNEGO protocol details? Is there an IETF mailing list somewhere? There are three issues: 1) GSS-SPNEGO search replies are sealed even though the request was not and a capture of another client talking to the same server shows replies as integ-only. A examination of the captures of my code and the other client shows the packets are identical (minus ber encoding differences and encrypted krb5 bits). 2) GSS-SPNEGO does not appear to use the additional bind exchange to negotiate the security-layer bit mask like GSSAPI does. 3) GSSAPI can use what is apparently the DN of an account called the "authorization identity". The actual values for this field do not appear to be documented anywhere. I don't suppose I should care since the code works fine but I do. Any pointers are appreciated. Mike

3 6

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd schema_init.c
by Kurt Zeilenga 29 Jan '07

29 Jan '07

While not exactly incorrect, I think it best to On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:39 AM, hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd > > Modified Files: > schema_init.c 1.393 -> 1.394 > > Log Message: > ITS#4823 allow zero-length IA5String > > > CVS Web URLs: > http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/ > http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/servers/slapd/ > schema_init.c > > Changes are generally available on cvs.openldap.org (and CVSweb) > within 30 minutes of being committed. >

1 1

sb_sasl_write short-count bug?
by Michael B Allen 29 Jan '07

29 Jan '07

Hi, Consider the sb_sasl_write function: 341 static ber_slen_t 342 sb_sasl_write( Sockbuf_IO_Desc *sbiod, void *buf, ber_len_t len) 343 { <snip> 352 /* Are there anything left in the buffer? */ 353 if ( p->buf_out.buf_ptr != p->buf_out.buf_end ) { 354 ret = ber_pvt_sb_do_write( sbiod, &p->buf_out ); <snip> 391 ret = ber_pvt_sb_do_write( sbiod, &p->buf_out ); 392 393 /* return number of bytes encoded, not written, to ensure 394 * no byte is encoded twice (even if only sent once). 395 */ 396 return len; 397 } This optimistically returns the len supplied. If ber_pvt_sb_do_write returns a short-count then data will be left in the p->buf_out. The remaining data will not be written until the next sb_sasl_write call which may not happen. I have not observed a problem but just from examining the logic I thought I might say something. Is this bug? Would putting ber_pvt_sb_do_write in a loop do any good? Mike

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/tests/scripts test049-sync-config
by Howard Chu 28 Jan '07

28 Jan '07

ando(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/tests/scripts > > Modified Files: > test049-sync-config 1.3 -> 1.4 > > Log Message: > make sure replication finished before comparing data (under valgrind, replication may take ages) I debated adding such a check before. I think the first check you added should be removed. In my initial testing there were timing-dependent errors that cropped up when refreshing was occurring while the ldapadd was running. I think it's important that we continue to test for this case, however crudely it's done. Too bad we don't have a reliable means to notify the test script when the consumer has actually started its work. We could query back-monitor but normally (not under valgrind) the refresh could complete before we got the back-monitor search result. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 1

Re: cn=include
by Eric Irrgang 26 Jan '07

26 Jan '07

Since 1) the behavior is different 2) the slapd.conf to cn=config conversion sucks in the relevant information anyway and 3) use of includes is inappropriate under cn=config is it maybe time for the slap* tools stop creating cn=Includes? On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Howard Chu wrote: > Eric Irrgang wrote: >> Are olcInclude attributes in cn=config honored as per the Admin Guide >> section 5.2.2 or is that documentation misleading? > > Good question. The short answer is - the use of include files is not > recommended for cn=config. They really only work correctly when slapd is using > slapd.conf. > > Keep in mind - in slapd.conf, you can insert include statements anywhere at > all in the config file, you can order them completely arbitrarily, > interleaving them with any other config statements. Under cn=config, all of > the cn=Includes are grouped under one place, they can't have anything else > inserted between them, so if they needed to have other intervening directives > processed first, they would fail. > > Also, the point of using cn=config is to make every part of the configuration > accessible/modifiable using LDAP. slapd.conf-formatted files (e.g. include > files) are not accessible or modifiable using LDAP. > -- > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc > OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/ > -- Eric Irrgang - UT Austin ITS Unix Systems - (512)475-9342

3 3

Search timeout?
by Pierangelo Masarati 26 Jan '07

26 Jan '07

I'm facing an issue: when a proxy is searching a remote server, and the server does not respond in the sense that it happily accepts a search request but never returns any type of response (a "silly" way of reproducing this issue consists in sending a SIGSTOP to the remote server: it accepts requests but does nothing), right now the proxy honors the timelimit. However, if the search is performed as the rootdn of the proxy, it will last forever. So I'd like to introduce the concept of "search timeout". This differs from the already existing "timelimit" in that it is not a client-requested (or server-imposed) limit on the overall duration of a search operation, but rather a server-imposed limitation on how long the proxy can wait consecutively for any sort of response from a remote server. This should, optionally, apply to the rootdn as well, since it's more about the sanity of the connection than on the properties of the operation. This type of limitation has already been introduced for other operations, including compare and all write operations, for a similar purpose. Comments? p.

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/tests/scripts test049-sync-config defines.sh
by Howard Chu 23 Jan '07

23 Jan '07

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/tests/scripts > > Modified Files: > defines.sh 1.147 -> 1.148 > Added Files: > test049-sync-config NONE -> 1.1 > > Log Message: > Test slave bootstrapping via syncrepl For anyone curious, this test shows how to use back-config and syncrepl to dynamically configure and populate a server. Two stub entries (cn=config and olcdatabase=config,cn=config) are slapadded to initialize the master and slave configurations. Then ldapadd/ldapmodify are used to load the syncprov module, add a syncrepl consumer to the config database, and add the syncprov overlay to the config database on the master. Then ldapmodify is used to start a syncrepl consumer on the slave's config database. The rest of the script adds schema, a database backend and content for the backend on the master, all of which get replicated to the slave. The dilemma of how not to wipe out the consumer configuration once the complete master configuration is replicated onto it is solved with this trick: the master has both a provider and a consumer configured on it, and the consumer points at the master. The syncrepl config handler checks to see if its providerURI matches any of the current server's listenerURIs. If there's a match, the config is a no-op. (It gets parsed but no consumer task is triggered.) -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 3

Modrdn replication
by Pierangelo Masarati 21 Jan '07

21 Jan '07

ITS#4809 reports that when replicating modrdn via slurpd, operational attributes don't get replicated. This appears to be intrinsically caused by the definition of the modrdn operation, which, unlike the modify and add operations, doesn't contemplate the possibility to add/modify attributes other than the naming ones. So add/modify can be easily exploited for replication by adding/modifying the write-related operational attributes during replication, while modrdn can't. Assuming there's any intention to fix slurpd replication until slurpd is dismissed, we need to find a means to attach modification of write-related operational attributes to a modrdn operation, to complement the modrdn operation itself. The proposed solution consists in explicitly modifying the necessary (operational) attributes by means of an additional modify operation that is attached to modrdn. This may be occasionally useful regardless of slurpd replication, which makes it more appealing for OpenLDAP developers, so that the required effort wouldn't be just wasted by slurpd dismissal. The additional modify could be wrapped into a control's value, and that control might be the "relax" control itself, so that the original operation, augmented by the optional modify, would need to succeed as a whole or abort, extending the capabilities of the "relax" control by allowing extra modifications to be added, in order to preserve the integrity of the object after the operation. Comments? p.

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel January 2007