openldap-devel August 2021

openldap-devel@openldap.org

5 participants
7 discussions

Fwd: 2.5 deprecated backends
by Aapo Romu 28 Mar '22

28 Mar '22

We are heavily utilising back-sql on our product. Granted it has its issues but it does so far fulfill our needs. We are currently running on 2.4.58 which we build ourselves for Debian and RHEL/CentOS based systems. We needed couple of patches to back-sql to make it work for us. I just created issues (and added my patches) for them. I don't have a slightest idea if the patches are of any use for you but they make our environments work. Removing back-sql from future releases would make us stuck with 2.4 release. https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9629 https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9630 --- Aapo Romu --- Software Architect --- Eficode Oy On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 00:02, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: > > > --On Sunday, August 8, 2021 6:32 PM +0100 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> > wrote: > > > Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > >> For 2.5, we deprecated: > >> > >> back-ndb > >> back-sql > >> back-perl > >> > >> Should these be removed for 2.6? > > > > I still routinely build back-perl in master. Is there any reason to > > remove it? > > Not necessarily, that's why I started the discussion. back-bdb was > deprecated with 2.3, but was around for all of 2.4 as well. I see no > reason to keep back-ndb around. back-sql has numerous open issues, but > I've no real insight into whether it retains any usefulness. > > --Quanah > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> >

3 5

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

2.6 branch created
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

The OpenLDAP 2.6 release branch has been created. master is now open for 2.7 development. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

Re: order of <what> clauses in ACLs
by Michael Ströder 15 Aug '21

15 Aug '21

HI! Moving this thread here to openldap-devel because it's not a usage question anymore: https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… TL;DR: 1. Would you consider the attached patch as a valid solution? 2. Improving slapo-constraint would also help. On 8/13/21 10:59 AM, Michael Ströder wrote: > On 8/13/21 1:51 AM, Howard Chu wrote: >> Michael Ströder wrote: >>> Let there be ACLs with dn.regex="..", attrs=foo,bar and val.regex=".." >>> in the <what> clauses. >>> >>> Obviously depending on complexity of regex-pattern and length of DNs / >>> avals the regex checking is more expensive than equality checking of attrs=. >>> >>> Can I improve ACL performance by order of <what> clauses or are they >>> processed in fixed order anyway? If in fixed order, which one? >> >> The order is fixed, in order of increasing granularity. DN first, >> attribute next, value-specific last. > > Is this order implemented in function slap_acl_get() in acl.c? > The last seems to be filter= after val=. Right? > >> That is the only order that makes logical sense. > > Why? > > IMHO attrs= should be checked first because > > dn.regex=".." > val.regex=".." > filter=".." > > are all potentially way more CPU-intensive than checking attrs= against > a simple hash-map. First tests (OpenLDAP 2.5/master) show with customer ACLs reading all attrs of 100k user entries and one huge group entry takes 2m23.459s with standard acl.c but only 1m22.718s with patched acl.c which evaluates attrs= before dn.regex= and val.regex=. The reason for improved performance here is that the test data has one really big group entry (100k members) with expensive ACLs on uniqueMember attribute. Thus quickly skipping the ACLs with attrs=uniqueMember saves lots of CPU. Yes, the tests are somewhat artificial and optimizing the clients is also needed. But anyway I'd like to avoid clients accidently causing unneeded load. And I expect this to also improve things for lots of smaller groups in real-world usage. Ciao, Michael. P.S.: The uniqueMember-ACLs are so complex because the original author wanted to work-around deficiencies of slapo-constraint. Have a set-relation for fully checking partical sets would make this problem go away... P.P.S.: Before you ask: These are *not* tests with Æ-DIR ACLs. P.P.P.S: I like the new etime= logging. :-)

2 3

Release Maintenance Policy
by Howard Chu 08 Aug '21

08 Aug '21

Planning to post this to -announce soon, any comments? Just a reminder to everyone: the Project has a long-standing policy of doing active development on only one release version at a time. To allow time for migrations we provide some overlap from one release version to the next. E.g., while 2.5 is active we will still provide critical bugfixes for 2.4. Since 2.4 has been around for something like 14 years now people may have forgotten this policy. This is a heads up that with 2.6 due for release in September, all updates to 2.4 will cease at that time. Likewise, when 2.7 is released next year all updates to 2.5 will cease. Also for clarity: We consider "Critical" bugs to include security flaws resulting in unauthorized data disclosure, or unauthorized remote code execution. We do not consider assert() failures or crashes resulting only in Denial of Service as security flaws. -- -- 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 8

2.5 deprecated backends
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 08 Aug '21

08 Aug '21

For 2.5, we deprecated: back-ndb back-sql back-perl Should these be removed for 2.6? Additionally, I think we should be deleting retired backends out of master. Git is designed for this type of thing, there's no need for them to persist (For example, back-shell). It makes branching new releases a major headache. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

2 2

ITS#9611
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 06 Aug '21

06 Aug '21

It appears there is an accidental backwards incompatibility with 2.4 where slapd doesn't honor alias names with structural objectClasses. This would be good to fix for 2.5.7 so that it doesn't impact people upgrading from 2.4. It could also cause issues with slapcat of a 2.4 config database with 2.5 slapcat unnecessarily. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel August 2021