openldap-devel December 2009

openldap-devel@openldap.org

15 participants
10 discussions

OpenLDAP 2.5
by Howard Chu 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

With 2.4.21 out, and hopefully stable enough to promote to the next Stable release, it's time to feature-freeze 2.4 and prepare for the 2.5 branch. As I already announced to the OpenLDAP-Committers, we're also planning to switch from CVS to GIT in mid-January. Commits for 2.5 will begin after we've settled into GIT. We haven't really laid out a formal roadmap for 2.5 yet, but I think most of it has been discussed here or in Development ITSs already. I would like to be able to resolve all outstanding Development ITSs - we will either implement them or reject/close them. There are 42 outstanding at the moment. Likewise for all outstanding ITSs in Software Bugs - many of them have been deferred because a proper fix would require invasive changes to large parts of the code base. There are 26 outstanding. With 2.5 beginning we are free to make these large scale changes. We should also walk thru the Software Enhancement requests and decide which to accept and which to reject. Currently there are 37 outstanding. I also have a number of specific areas I want to see worked on; some of these are included in the above ITSs but I'll outline them here: syncrepl config - this is pretty unwieldy already; syncrepl needs to be moved outside of the slapd core and into an overlay. That will allow us a lot more flexibility in configuring while also eliminating a lot of redundant parsing code. suffixmassage - we at the very least need to be able to point a consumer at some non-homogeneous suffix in the provider. We may go for complete librewrite support as well, although at this point I don't see as strong a need. config TLS certs and keys should be stored as LDAP attributes, not pointers to filesystem locations. This is a prereq to using some of the dynamic cert generation features of the CA overlay. (This can be troublesome as there may not be clean APIs for reading certs from memory in all of the TLS APIs we support.) Disabling individual config attribute values and entries. At the moment I'm thinking of adding an ";x-disabled" tag to those values. back-mdb Using a single-level store for Entries will impact all of the schema engine as well. I think the simplest solution here is going to be using an mmap'd file for all of the schema elements. The actual design of back-mdb still needs to be defined in several areas. The single-level store approach exposes us to some new failure modes that the current multi-level backends don't have. (E.g., corruptions due to bad RAM / wild pointer writes are very likely to get persisted on disk, implicitly.) The solution I'm considering is based on a mirroring strategy. Every database will be stored twice on disk: once in the file that is actively mmap'd into the process, and once in a write-only file. On every intentional update of a memory page, we will also store a checksum of the page, and manually write the page to the mirror. If we detect a checksum failure on any in-memory page we can still retrieve a valid copy from the mirror file. This of course doubles our potential I/O load, but I don't believe it's any worse than the load from performing write-ahead logging on a traditional database. (And yes, mirroring will take the place of writing transaction log files.) Some of these same considerations apply to the schema storage, but not entirely. At runtime, the schema is effectively read-only. When we do dynamic schema changes thru cn=config, all other threads are suspended. For the mmap purposes, we can mark all of the schema pages as read-only during runtime, and only make them read-write when cn=config is actually trying to perform an update. As such, the only sticky issue is dealing with changes made to the back-config internal files by plain text editors and such. These are the things I'm interested in. But as always, this Project is driven forward by the particular interests of each individual contributor. If you have other ideas you want to pursue, speak up. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

9 13

ACL check parameters
by Howard Chu 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

oprofile shows quite a bit more overhead in 2.4's ACL processing vs 2.3's. I'm thinking of streamlining things a bit, along these lines. Any thoughts? This acl.c compiles, but a fair amount of slapd code needs to be altered to use it. I guess if we commit and move forward on it it will have to be for 2.5. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

3 7

Fwd: Re: (ITS#6194) Patch - Enhancement - provide LDIF support as libldif
by Howard Chu 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

So, what do folks think about reviving libldif as an exported piece of the distribution? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: (ITS#6194) Patch - Enhancement - provide LDIF support as libldif Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:46:08 GMT From: hyc(a)symas.com To: openldap-its(a)openldap.org rmeggins(a)redhat.com wrote: > I think this could be accomplished in one of two ways: > 1) Just have libldif return lists of struct berval* for the various data > parsed. The caller would be responsible for turning these into LDAPMod > or LDAPControl structures - the advantage is that libldif doesn't have > to know about any of these higher level structures > 2) Have libldif create LDAPMod and LDAPControl - I think this could be > accomplished by having ldif.c #include<ldap.h> to pull in the > definitions of LDAPMod and LDAPControl - would this be ok? Let's move this discussion to the openldap-devel mailing list. I'm thinking (2) is OK but I'd like to hear from other developers / potential users of this library. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

4 4

static assertions
by Hallvard B Furuseth 21 Dec '09

21 Dec '09

I think we should insert a number of static assertions in the OpenLDAP code: Asserts that fail or succeed at compile time. E.g. for the comment in config.c:bindkey[] (ITS#6419). Like this - in include/ac/assert.h? Or ldap_cdefs.h in case we want to use it in installed headers? /* Declaration which tries to force a compile error if !cond */ #define ber_static_assert(cond) \ LBER_V(LDAP_CONST char) ber_assertion[ber_assertz(cond) + 1] /* Return 0, or if !cond try to force a compile error */ #define ber_assertz(cond) (sizeof(struct { \ int ber_assert1[(cond) ? 9 : -9], ber_assert2:(cond) ? 9 : -9; }) && 0) /* Usage: */ ber_static_assert(~0U >= 0xFFFFFFFFUL); /* int = 32 bits or wider */ int foo(int i) { return i + ber_assertz(LDAP_SUCCESS == 0); } liblber will need a dummy variable 'const char ber_assertion[1];'. We can drop that if anyone dislikes it: ber_static_assert() can take an assertion_name parameter and declare a typedef based on that name. Or it can generate a name from __LINE__. Then we can have only one static assert per line, which matters for macros but little else. -- Hallvard

2 3

RE24 testing call #1 (2.4.21)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

All commits for the upcoming 2.4.21 release have been integrated. Please test. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

6 5

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd bconfig.c
by Ralf Haferkamp 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Am Donnerstag 10 Dezember 2009 14:22:26 schrieb ralf(a)openldap.org: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd > > Modified Files: > bconfig.c 1.404 -> 1.405 > > Log Message: > global limits can also be set in "cn=config" (more forITS#6428) While working on this, I learned that the global limits can either be set in the "cn=config" entry or in "olcDatabase=frontend,cn=config". Is there a special reason for this? This seems also to be the case for some other attributes: olcSecurity, olcRestricted, olcRequires. Just to name a few. -- Ralf

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd config.c syncrepl.c
by Hallvard B Furuseth 09 Dec '09

09 Dec '09

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org writes: > ITS#6419 also init for ldaps:// URIs Does it work for ldapi:// as well? (And should it?) I seem to remember StartTLS does work for ldapi, though I don't know what a sensible host name in the server cert would be in that case. -- Hallvard

5 6

Re: LDAPI support in JLDAP
by Endi Sukma Dewata 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Hi Marc, Thanks for your suggestions. I tried to create a subclass of LDAPConnection but I was getting a lot of problems accessing non-public methos/classes belonging to com.novell.java package. But it gave me a different idea, I finally got it to work using a custom socket factory. First I create an LDAPIUrl to parse LDAPI URL: LDAPIUrl url = new LDAPIUrl("ldapi://%2ftmp%2ftest"); Then I create a LDAPISocketFactory and pass it to LDAPConnection: LDAPISocketFactory factory = new LDAPISocketFactory(); LDAPConnection connection = new LDAPConnection(factory); To establish the connection I use the hostname parameter of the connect() function to pass the LDAPI path: connection.connect(url.getPath(), 0); The socket factory will use the path to create the Unix domain socket and ignore the port: public Socket createSocket(String path, int port) { AFUNIXSocket socket = AFUNIXSocket.newInstance(); socket.connect(new AFUNIXSocketAddress(new File(path))); return socket; } So thanks a lot and never mind about the proposal. :) -- Endi S. Dewata ----- "Marc Boorshtein" <mboorshtein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Endi, > > A few years ago I was able to add DSMLv2 and SPMLv1 support to JLDAP > by creating subclasses of the LDAPConnection class. This worked well > without requiring changes to the rest of the JLDAP source code. I > used JLDAP as the core for the SQL Directory Browser, which supports > both SPML and DSMLv2. I think the same strategy would work with > LDAPI? > > Marc > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Endi Sukma Dewata <edewata(a)redhat.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Let me introduce myself, I'm working on the IPA & Samba integration > > effort and I'm building a Java-based synchronization tool that > > communicates with LDAP servers using the JLDAP library. Here is > some > > background about the project: > > http://www.freeipa.org/page/IPAv3_development_status > > > > The LDAP servers used here is the 389 DS (formerly known as Fedora > > DS). When it's used as Samba private backend, the DS is configured > > only to listen to LDAPI protocol. I'm trying to use the JLDAP > library, > > but currently it doesn't seem to support LDAPI. I think it's > natural > > to add LDAPI support into JLDAP because OpenLDAP also supports > LDAPI. > > Is there already a plan to add this feature? > > > > I've been doing some investigation and it seems that it can be > added > > without too much effort because there's an existing library called > > junixsocket which can provide access to Unix Domain Sockets from > Java: > > http://code.google.com/p/junixsocket/ > > > > Here is a proposal of the changes need to be made to JLDAP in order > > to support LDAPI: > > http://www.freeipa.org/page/OpenLDAP_LDAPI_Support_in_JLDAP > > > > My questions are: > > 1. Who is currently maintaining the JLDAP module? > > 2. Is it ok to modify the IETF API slightly as described in the > > proposal? > > 3. Is it ok to include junixsocket in JLDAP? Alternatively we could > > design a pluggable interface so other people can add new protocol > > schemes into JLDAP. > > > > Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or > > suggestions. Thank you very much. > > > > -- > > Endi S. Dewata > >

1 0

LDAPI support in JLDAP
by Endi Sukma Dewata 04 Dec '09

04 Dec '09

Hello, Let me introduce myself, I'm working on the IPA & Samba integration effort and I'm building a Java-based synchronization tool that communicates with LDAP servers using the JLDAP library. Here is some background about the project: http://www.freeipa.org/page/IPAv3_development_status The LDAP servers used here is the 389 DS (formerly known as Fedora DS). When it's used as Samba private backend, the DS is configured only to listen to LDAPI protocol. I'm trying to use the JLDAP library, but currently it doesn't seem to support LDAPI. I think it's natural to add LDAPI support into JLDAP because OpenLDAP also supports LDAPI. Is there already a plan to add this feature? I've been doing some investigation and it seems that it can be added without too much effort because there's an existing library called junixsocket which can provide access to Unix Domain Sockets from Java: http://code.google.com/p/junixsocket/ Here is a proposal of the changes need to be made to JLDAP in order to support LDAPI: http://www.freeipa.org/page/OpenLDAP_LDAPI_Support_in_JLDAP My questions are: 1. Who is currently maintaining the JLDAP module? 2. Is it ok to modify the IETF API slightly as described in the proposal? 3. Is it ok to include junixsocket in JLDAP? Alternatively we could design a pluggable interface so other people can add new protocol schemes into JLDAP. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or suggestions. Thank you very much. -- Endi S. Dewata

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/libraries/libldap util-int.c
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

--On Monday, November 30, 2009 8:47 PM +0000 hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/libraries/libldap > > Modified Files: > util-int.c 1.65 -> 1.66 > > Log Message: > ITS#6405 in ldap_pvt_gettime, also check for microsecs going backward Neither this function nor this code exist in RE24, which is what the bug was reported against. I assume a different fix is needed there? --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel December 2009