openldap-devel October 2020

openldap-devel@openldap.org

2 participants
4 discussions

asserts and manadatory build instructions (was ITS#8240)
by Michael Ströder 04 Nov '21

04 Nov '21

hyc(a)symas.com wrote in ITS#8240: > Our patch response was too hasty. There is no OpenLDAP bug here, the real > issue is production binaries being built with asserts enabled instead of > compiling with -DNDEBUG. That's an issue for packagers and distros to resolve. > Closing this ITS, not an OpenLDAP bug. Maybe I missed something. But this is the first time I've heard about -DNDEBUG being mandatory when compiling binary packages for production use. Does it have other effects? And what are general rules for assert statements in OpenLDAP code? In my own (Python) code assert statements are supposed to be only triggered if something goes wrong *internally* (type issues etc.). If somebody manages to trigger an assert statement with invalid input from "outside" I always consider this to be a serious bug revealing insufficient error handling even though e.g. web2ldap just logs the exception but won't crash. YMMV, but please clarify. I also wonder whether there are more mandatory rules for building packages and where I can find them. Please don't get me wrong: My inquiry is in good faith to avoid unnecessary ITS based on misunderstanding. Ciao, Michael.

1 1

New logging system ideas
by Howard Chu 18 Jul '21

18 Jul '21

Just some initial thoughts on what a new logging daemon should do for us: The primary goal - we want to use a binary message format with as few format conversions as possible between log sender and log processor. I'm thinking that we use message catalogs; we will need a tool to preprocess every logging invocation in the source tree and replace them with a integer messageID. So at runtime only the messageID and the message parameters need to be sent, not any plaintext. The message catalog will be compiled into the binary. When it performs its "openlog" to talk to the logging server, it will send the UUID of its catalog. If the logging server doesn't know this UUID, it will transmit the message catalog to the logging server, before doing anything else. (It may make more sense just to use a SHA hash here instead of a UUID.) This way the logging server will work with any version of the binaries, and we don't need to do special coordination to update message catalogs between revisions. The logging server will just know that a specific catalog is to be used with a particular logging session. The message protocol will be length-prefixed. We may even just use DER, since that would allow us to encode arrays of parameters, and other such stuff. The logging server will write the log messages to disk/network verbatim, doing no parsing at all. It may prefix the records with a log session ID, so that a postprocessor can lookup the catalog that belongs to the session, for dumping out as text. The logging server can store its received catalogs in an LMDB database. The postprocessor can then lookup individual messageIDs in this database, interpolate the parameters, and dump out in text. ... that's what I have so far. It's a bit worrisome because of the additional moving parts: message catalog creator, log server, log postprocessor. There's definitely more complexity here, but most of it is moved out of the runtime hot path, which is the main goal. Suggestions? -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

5 12

CI/CD on git.openldap.org
by Norbert Klasen 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

Hi, when I pushed a new branch to my fork of the JLDAP repo, this triggered the Auto DevOps CI/CD pipeline. Is that supposed to work on git.openldap.org? From the error messages it seems to me, that it cannot resolve the host "docker": error during connect: Post http://docker:2375/v1.40/auth: dial tcp: lookup docker on 173.255.199.5:53: no such host error during connect: Post http://docker:2375/v1.40/images/create?fromImage=registry.gitlab.com%2Fgitl…: dial tcp: lookup docker on 173.255.199.5:53: no such host Regards Norbert -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: JLDAP | Pipeline #1219 has failed for maven | 6795ebdf Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:02:31 +0000 From: GitLab <gitlab(a)git.openldap.org> Reply-To: GitLab <noreply(a)git.openldap.org> JLDAP | Pipeline #1219 has failed for maven | 6795ebdf GitLab ✖ Your pipeline has failed. Project Norbert Klasen <https://git.openldap.org/klasen> / JLDAP <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap> Branch maven <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap/-/commits/maven> Commit 6795ebdf <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap/-/commit/6795ebdf4f091ff4135cb5a671b9…> Delete .gitlab-ci.yml. Re-enable Auto DevOps pi... Commit Author Norbert Klasen <https://git.openldap.org/klasen> Pipeline #1219 <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap/-/pipelines/1219> triggered by Norbert Klasen <https://git.openldap.org/klasen> had 2 failed builds. Failed builds ✖ test code_quality <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap/-/jobs/2594> ✖ build build <https://git.openldap.org/klasen/jldap/-/jobs/2592> GitLab You're receiving this email because of your account on git.openldap.org. Manage all notifications <https://git.openldap.org/profile/notifications> · Help <https://git.openldap.org/help>

2 2

Moving OpenLDAP 2.5 towards release
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 14 Oct '20

14 Oct '20

There's been great and steady progress on getting closer to an official 2.5 release. At this time, I feel that 2.5 is ready for its first alpha. While there are some hard blockers to an official release that still need to be finished, there is plenty of items that are in the 2.5 tree that it would be good to get additional testing on now. One thing that differentiates 2.5 from the time when 2.4 was released is that a substantial portion of the new code has already been being used in the Symas OpenLDAP Gold series which means it has already had extensive testing and production deployment. For those interested in helping getting 2.5 an official release timeframe, the following things would be helpful: *) I've been using Bugzilla's Target milestone to indicate items I'd like to see addressed for 2.5. This does not necessarily mean they will be fixed for 2.5. Many of the items are several years old, and simply need a confirmation as to whether they are still issues or were already fixed. It also may make more sense to push some of these items out to 2.6. I've done that for a number of issues already, so what remains are the ones where I felt I was not able to make that call. Anything I've added the keyword OL_2_5_REQUIRED to is something I think must be done for 2.5, but that's subject to review. A list of issues currently marked as 2.5 (mostly minus doc bugs) can be seen here: <https://bugs.openldap.org/buglist.cgi?component=backends&component=build&co…> *) There are about 40 explicit documentation bugs, as found here: <https://bugs.openldap.org/buglist.cgi?component=documentation&list_id=837&p…> It would be great if community members who are familiar with the product could help chip in here, particularly with flushing out the Admin guide. For the man pages, we do have one item that really needs a policy decision that I can't make (ITS#7335), which is how we handle documenting options for slapd.conf vs cn=config. Right now, we are completely inconsistent in this and many relevant man pages are entirely missing anything about how to configure via cn=config. Once that policy is decided, it will unblock a lot of other work. *) Testing -- We need a lot of this. It would be especially helpful if people who have QA/Test/Pre-prod environments were to run 2.5 through known work loads. To this end, Symas is planning on providing pre-compiled binaries for a number of platforms once there is an official alpha release. I still have a bit of work to do on that end, however, so it would not necessarily coincide with the source release. This may be something the LTB project could also participate in as a way to help testing of the 2.5 series. To the above, it may be useful to go over the list of items that are new and changed with 2.5: <https://bugs.openldap.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFI…> One area where it would be especially helpful for testing for the *BSD folks out there is the support added for kqueue. I'm hoping the FreeBSD project and similar will be able to participate in this. Another area would be OpenSSL 3.0 testing, since it is nearing completion. It would be helpful if people could build and test the 2.5 branch against their current beta and see if they hit any new/odd issues and open issues on that accordingly if encountered. Regards, Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel October 2020