openldap-devel March 2021

openldap-devel@openldap.org

4 participants
6 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

Re: New OpenLDAP TLS backend? (wolfSSL)
by Hayden Roche 20 May '21

20 May '21

Quanah and Howard, Thanks for your quick replies! I'm glad to hear there's interest in this. I think 2.6 is a more realistic target, as I'll need to get my boss to allocate time for this work amongst other wolfSSL tasks I've been assigned. Look forward to a merge request in the (hopefully near) future! Thanks, Hayden On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:17 PM Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:38 PM -0600 Hayden Roche > <haydenroche5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (thanks JoBbZ). I was also pointed to this > > issue in your issue tracking system, where a developer (Quanah > > Gibson-Mount) > > Same person. ;) > > > > Is there still interest in getting wolfSSL working with OpenLDAP's latest > > version and integrated upstream? > > OpenLDAP 2.4 is closed to development. If you want this in for OpenLDAP > 2.5, you'll need to get the work in ASAP, otherwise it will have to wait > for 2.6 > > Generally: > > Sign up for an account on our gitlab instance: https://git.openldap.org > > Fork a copy of the openldap repo. > > Create a branch for ITS9303 and do the work in that branch > > Push the branch > > Open a merge request for review > > Additionally, you'll need to add an IPR statement to ITS#9303 as > documented > at <https://www.openldap.org/devel/contributing.html#notice> > > A link to the MR should also be put into the ITS. > > Regards, > Quanah > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> >

2 1

ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s and LDAP_SASL_QUIET
by Jordan Brown 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

ldap_sasl_interactive_bind_s prints SASL-related messages on stderr by default, unless you specify LDAP_SASL_QUIET. This seems wrong. The whole point of the "interact" function is to handle any required conversation with the user. In particular, in a GUI application these messages won't go to the user; more likely they will just clutter up some log. Would the OpenLDAP community be receptive to a patch that directs these messages through the "interact" function? (I think they have very little value and should just be dropped; that would be OK too.) SASL username: somename(a)EXAMPLE.COM SASL SSF: 56 SASL data security layer installed. -- Jordan Brown, Oracle ZFS Storage Appliance, Oracle Solaris

2 2

Some suggested 2.5 code cleanups/renames
by Hallvard Breien Furuseth 23 Mar '21

23 Mar '21

Hello. slap_op_time(time_t *t, int *nop) could previously be called with any 2 arg of those types. But now it modifies nop[1], so old code other than slap_op_time(&op->o_time, &op->o_tincr) gets a bad memory write. Source-code compat looks like a misfeature now. I'd rather rename and re-prototype: slap_op_gettime(Operation* or some new time-struct*). == Another fake array: Let's replace bi_op_bind..bi_chk_controls in BackendInfo with macros referring into a new bi_op_func[14]. Today (&bi->bi_op_bind) is used as an array here: grep -r '(&.*_bind)' And apply 'contrib/slapd-tools/wrap_slap_ops -u * | patch -p0', though that can wait a bit more - until RE24 is really surely not going to get new releases and merge conflicts with the patch. (Hm. The "delete newlines at EOF" cleanup doesn't belong there.) Related issue: slap_operation_e was the indexes to (&bi->bi_op_bind), but now it has op_txn too corresponding to bi_op_txn with a different prototype. 'grep -r op_last' shows code mentioning op_last which has not been updated to match this. Unsure what to do about this. Other than commenting the enum afterwards, anyway:-) == Any chance of wrapping struct ldapoptions' contents in some structs? Today, if a new field is added but the corresponding NULLARG is not updated to match, the later NULLARGs initialize the wrong fields and can fail. As in ITS#9332 (init ldo_tls_require_san). So anyway, one struct per LDAP_blah_NULLARG. Then replace most NULLARGs with {0}. But must add lots of macros, for the old fields. == Hallvard

2 1

Merge request management
by Ondřej Kuzník 18 Mar '21

18 Mar '21

It's a good development that we have more merge requests coming in and things are getting looked at. As things pick up, we need to be able to quickly identify which requests are waiting on review, where we're waiting on the review comments to be addressed. I guess we can keep switching the WIP: flag on the request for that one and let authors remove it when ready again. Similar when a different reviewer is needed (e.g. when I've added substantial code to an existing request) or a configure update or a backport to an older release should be done post-merge, labels might or might not be the best fit, there's also way to request review from a particular person. BTW non-project members are invited to help with review and testing, it's a great way to get familiar with the codebase and helps the project move faster and at higher quality. -- Ondřej Kuzník Senior Software Engineer Symas Corporation http://www.symas.com Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel March 2021