openldap-devel May 2021

openldap-devel@openldap.org

6 participants
6 discussions

asserts and manadatory build instructions (was ITS#8240)
by Michael Ströder 05 Nov '21

05 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 21 May '21

21 May '21

Hi, Unfortunately, all my time is allocated to other wolfSSL tasks at the moment, so I won't be able to work on this for 2.6. This will probably be the case until a customer of ours comes along requesting a port of OpenLDAP to wolfSSL, as customer demands drive most of our development. If that changes, I will let you know, though. Thanks, Hayden On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:56 AM Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:53 PM -0600 Hayden Roche > <haydenroche5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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! > > The openldap mainline code branch is now open for 2.6 development, so this > would be a good time for work to start on this item for inclusion. > > Regards, > Quanah > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> >

1 0

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

21 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

ssl_cipher_list_to_bytes:no ciphers available
by Michael Ströder 07 May '21

07 May '21

HI! I have issues with OpenSSL ciphers on my openSUSE Tumbleweed and release 2.5.4 when connecting to an 2.4 provider: TLS: can't connect: error:141A90B5:SSL routines:ssl_cipher_list_to_bytes:no ciphers available. An 2.4.58 consumer replica works just fine. There is this commit in RE25 and I'm not sure whether that introduces a regression on my system: b72bce2400ce303766f355a1dd37f4012754c942 ITS#9521 Set TLSv1.3 cipher suites for OpenSSL 1.1 BTW: openSUSE has implemented something like a crypto policy configuration: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/security:tls/openssl-1_1/opens… Any clue what's going on? Ciao, Michael.

2 9

slapo-ppolicy 2.4 vs. 2.5
by Michael Ströder 05 May '21

05 May '21

HI! slapo-ppolicy in OpenLDAP 2.5 shows slightly different behaviour in python-ldap0 tests (see test output below). Tests: https://gitlab.com/ae-dir/python-ldap0/-/blob/master/tests/test_ppolicy.py When working with Ondřej for solving ITS#9279 I finally "fixed" ldap0 tests to accomodate the behaviour of OpenLDAP 2.4.x. I did not feel comfortable back then because it was not clear to me whether it was the correct fix. Do you have any tests you could run against 2.4 and 2.5 to verify whether both have same behaviour? Ciao, Michael. ====================================================================== FAIL: test003_ppolicy_grace_logins (tests.test_ppolicy.TestPPolicy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/michael/Proj/ae-dir/python-ldap0/tests/test_ppolicy.py", line 235, in test003_ppolicy_grace_logins self.assertEqual( AssertionError: 'Password expired! 1 grace logins left.' != 'Password expired! 2 grace logins left.' - Password expired! 1 grace logins left. ? ^ + Password expired! 2 grace logins left. ? ^ ====================================================================== FAIL: test001_pwdpolicy_expiration (tests.test_ppolicy.TestPwdPolicy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/michael/Proj/ae-dir/python-ldap0/tests/test_ppolicy.py", line 285, in test001_pwdpolicy_expiration self.assertIsInstance(bind_res.ctrls[0], PasswordExpiringControl) AssertionError: <ldap0.controls.pwdpolicy.PasswordExpiredControl object at 0x7efc9d8ca760> is not an instance of <class 'ldap0.controls.pwdpolicy.PasswordExpiringControl'> ====================================================================== FAIL: test002_pwdpolicy_expired (tests.test_ppolicy.TestPwdPolicy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/michael/Proj/ae-dir/python-ldap0/tests/test_ppolicy.py", line 306, in test002_pwdpolicy_expired l.simple_bind_s(self.user_dn, user_password.encode('utf-8')) AssertionError: INVALID_CREDENTIALS not raised

3 6

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel May 2021