openldap-devel

openldap-devel@openldap.org

1418 discussions

Start a nNew thread

2.4.29?
by Michael Ströder 08 Feb '12

08 Feb '12

HI! RE24 seems to be tagged ready to release. When will 2.4.29 be officially released? Ciao, Michael.

2 1

Re: RE24 testing call #4
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

--On Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:27 AM -0500 Jan Vcelak <jvcelak(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> > And from some reason, we encounter segfaults in certain tools >> > (like SSSD) and even in slapd with syncrepl when terminating >> > (appeared somewhere between 2.4.26 and 2.4.28): >> >> Do you still see this with RE24? I can't tell based on what you've >> said >> above. I.e. is this ITS#7132? Also, did you upgrade sasl to 2.1.25 >> at the >> same time? It's got a whole boatload of bugs. > > Yes, I see it with RE24 (0056912) and cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-28.fc17.x86_64. Please file an ITS with a stack trace of the crash. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 1

Re: RE24 testing call #4
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

--On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:55 AM -0500 Jan Vcelak <jvcelak(a)redhat.com> wrote: > Hello. > > If you use Fedora, I've established repository with the test builds > for versions 16 and 17 (Rawhide): > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/jvcelak/openldap/ > > openldap-2.4.29-0.1.tc4 matches currently latest commit 0056912 > > Some comments: > > Basic client/server operations seems to work. There are still > some problems with MozNSS we discovered recently and haven't > figured out yet. The biggest problem is, that syncrepl with PEM > certificates is broken (works with MozNSS certdb). But this > problem seems to be present in previous versions as well. > > And from some reason, we encounter segfaults in certain tools > (like SSSD) and even in slapd with syncrepl when terminating > (appeared somewhere between 2.4.26 and 2.4.28): Do you still see this with RE24? I can't tell based on what you've said above. I.e. is this ITS#7132? Also, did you upgrade sasl to 2.1.25 at the same time? It's got a whole boatload of bugs. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

RE24 testing call #4
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

Please test RE24. Recent fixes primarily for back-mdb. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

3 2

RE24 testing call #2 (2.4.29)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

A few minor fixes. Please test. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

4 6

RE24 Testing call #3 (2.4.29)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

2 fixes for MozNSS. I anticipate this to be the last testing call before tagging for release. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

2 1

RE24 testing call #1 (2.4.29)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 24 Jan '12

24 Jan '12

Please test RE24. Thanks! --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

2 1

what is the pretty function and the validate function?
by Tianyin Xu 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Hi, all, I'm trying to understand the internal workflow of the attribute type checking and syntax validation in OpenLDAP. For example, if I use an attribute whose syntax is not implemented like "presentationAddress", the log message "no validator for syntax" will occur. I trace this message in the source code and find this's done by checking "pretty" and "validate", as follows: -------------------------------------servers/slapd/modify.c-------------------------------- slap_syntax_validate_func *validate = ad->ad_type->sat_syntax->ssyn_validate; slap_syntax_transform_func *pretty = ad->ad_type->sat_syntax->ssyn_pretty; if( !pretty && !validate ) { *text = "no validator for syntax"; snprintf( textbuf, textlen, "%s: no validator for syntax %s", ml->sml_type.bv_val, ad->ad_type->sat_syntax->ssyn_oid ); *text = textbuf; return LDAP_INVALID_SYNTAX; } ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, the pretty function and validate function are treat differently in the latter code like: if ( pretty ) { rc = ordered_value_pretty( ad, &ml->sml_values[nvals], &pval, ctx ); // wrapper for pretty function } else { rc = ordered_value_validate( ad, &ml->sml_values[nvals], ml->sml_op ); // wrapper for validate function } I'm very confused on the "pretty" function and the "validate" function. I tried to google but no related results. Could anyone tell me WHAT is the pretty function and what is the validate function? And HOW can OpenLDAP knows which function is pretty and which is validate? Sorry for the newbie question. Thanks a lot!!! Best, Tianyin -- Tianyin XU, http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~tixu/

1 0

back-monitor API: monitor_subsys_t
by Ondrej Kuznik 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm looking over back-monitor's interface to get some more monitoring to back-ldap, mainly operation count, just like the one in cn=operations,cn=monitor and finishing the connection monitoring in ldap_back_monitor_conn_create. There is a part of the monitor API that is a bit unclear to me: In order to register an entry with register_entry(), one needs a monitor_subsys_t structure, but how to obtain one? Is it a back-monitor's job to appoint one or the monitored backend's? The only use of this structure outside back-monitor is back-ldap again, not relying on anyone when populating the structure, however a comment directly above that code reads: "set up the fake subsystem [...]", where the "fake" reads to me as "we shouldn't need one at all". I understand the monitoring in back-ldap is functionally a stub with the infrastructure *mostly* done, so maybe there was a rewrite of the relevant code planned? What else should I take into consideration and/or be looking into during my efforts? - -- Ondrej Kuznik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7l9F0ACgkQ9GWxeeH+cXuehwCglecsXz589XJq7g0ciHRstplp sNcAnA6DnU/elucCWUlOMF0mORVyvqLm =2C+Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

3 2

back-monitor and compare operation
by Ondrej Kuznik 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, while in progress of adding further monitoring capabilities to the back-ldap backend I stumbled over a weirdness in how the monitor handles the COMPARE operation: If a compare request is issued, the entry is retrieved directly from the monitor cache, triggering no updates, thus the outcome of that comparison is based on outdated or default information (depends on when an update was last triggered). As a minimum example, having a fresh instance of cn=monitor (that you have not searched since startup) compare the monitoredInfo attribute of cn=Uptime,cn=Time,cn=monitor to "0", you should get LDAP_COMPARE_TRUE. I've been forced to make a small change to the back-monitor subsystem API locally (will upload the patch shortly), so I could fix this too now that I've become familiar with the code a bit. - -- Ondrej Kuznik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8MTUwACgkQ9GWxeeH+cXvU8gCfUayFypwDbByJMFWorjgCYI+r bZUAnRt0bQz11hazctXc5Gn72+by3+9N =SPg/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you for understanding.

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel