openldap-technical June 2018

openldap-technical@openldap.org

26 participants
26 discussions

Problem with "force user to password reset at first login
by Rajagopal Rc 30 Oct '23

30 Oct '23

Hi, I am trying to force users to change their password at first login or after password reset by administrator. Tried following: 1)Password policy 'pwdMustChange TRUE' doesn't seems to be working as non of the users get prompt to change their password at first login. 2) used the 'pwdReset TRUE' attribute in users attributes, and it won't prompt to change the password and didn't allow to login i observe below messages in log "slapd[12684]: connection restricted to password changing only slapd[12684]: send_ldap_result: err=50 matched="" text="Operations are restricted to bind/unbind/abandon/StartTLS/modify password" slapd[12684]: conn=1053 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=50 nentries=0 text=Operations are restricted to bind/unbind/abandon/StartTLS/modify password" Please help me configure the option to force all users to change their password at first login or after pwd reset by administrator. Thanks & Regards Raj Tata Consultancy Services Mailto: rajagopal.rc(a)tcs.com Website: http://www.tcs.com ____________________________________________ Experience certainty. IT Services Business Solutions Consulting ____________________________________________ =====-----=====-----===== Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you

5 9

role based authorization -> dynacl module?
by Daniel Tröder 11 Oct '18

11 Oct '18

Hello everyone, I am in the process of implementing a role concept via ACLs and hope for a hint so that I don't invent the wheel a second time. Specifically, it is about identity management for schools. A user (object) can have several roles in multiple schools. Permissions on other LDAP objects can thus differ depending on the role(s) the user and the object have in the same school(s). For example, a user could have been assigned the following roles that are scattered over several schools: → "Teacher" in school 1 → "School admin" in school 2 → "Parent" in school 3 → both "Teacher" and "Staff" in school 4 ACLs should now be defined accordingly, e.g. → the role "teacher" at school X can reset the password for the role "student" at school X → the role "teacher" at school X *cannot* reset the password for the role "student" of school Y → the role "school administrator" at school X can reset the password for the roles "student" and "teacher" at school X → ... So far I have not seen any way to map such a construct via groups or sets without including a separate ACL for each group, which is a performance issue. Is there another way to map the role concept besides implementing an own dynacl module? Greetings, Daniel

4 13

back-mdb and alias dereferencing
by Henrik Bohnenkamp 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi, I would like to bring up the problem with back-mdb and alias-dereferening again. There is Bug ITS#7657 for this already, and in http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201504/msg00008.html the problem was also addressed. Probably in other places as well, but I did not find anything else in the archives. I would like to reconfigure all my LDAP clusters to use back-mdb, however, I can't: my LDAP tree has about 2 Mio entries, 600000 of which are alias entries. I observe that when using back-mdb and making search request with search scope "sub" and deref=always, than this search request will take seconds before a response... in contrast, with deref=never, the same search request takes only millisecs. It does not matter whether there are aliases in the search scope or not... with deref=always it always takes seconds, each request keeping one CPU thread very busy. So if many requests come in with sub/always (which unfortunately happens a lot because many LDAP clients just set deref=always as a default) it is a sure way to bring down an LDAP cluster configured with back-mdb. The problem has haunted me for a while (incidents, incidents :-), and I have tried to find out where it comes from. I would like to share my conjectures here. A search request with sub/always eventually ends up in the function search_aliases(..), located in back-mdb/search.c (code/linenumbers is from v2.4.46 ): 157 /* Find all aliases in database */ 158 MDB_IDL_ZERO( aliases ); 159 rs->sr_err = mdb_filter_candidates( op, isc->mt, &af, aliases, 160 curscop, visited ); 161 if (rs->sr_err != LDAP_SUCCESS || MDB_IDL_IS_ZERO( aliases )) { 162 return rs->sr_err; 163 } 164 oldsubs[0] = 1; 165 oldsubs[1] = e_id; 166 167 MDB_IDL_ZERO( visited ); 168 MDB_IDL_ZERO( newsubs ); 169 170 cursoro = 0; 171 ido = mdb_idl_first( oldsubs, &cursoro ); 172 173 for (;;) { 174 /* Set curscop to only the aliases in the current scope. Start with 175 * all the aliases, then get the intersection with the scope. 176 */ 177 rs->sr_err = mdb_idscope( op, isc->mt, e_id, aliases, curscop ); After adding a bit of extra debug code, I could see in the logs that the time is actually spent in line 177, i.e. the mdb_idscope function. What I believe is happening is the following: in line 159 the index list of all aliases in the DB is constructed and put into the "aliases" list. The list comes from the objectClass index, but since there are so many alias entries, the index contains not an explicit list, but a range... a range that covers basically *all* 2 Mio entries in the DB. (this happens also with the hdb backend, so the fact that "aliases" is a range is perhaps part, but not cause of the problem). Then the for loop is entered in 173, and mdb_idscope in 177 is called. The idea there is to compute the intersection of alias list "aliases" and search scope, i.e. get all aliases that are in the actual search scope. This is done by walking through the 2 millions indexes represented by the range in "aliases", and deciding whether the id is in the scope or not. This, if I understand correctly, by walking up the LDAP tree from leaf towards root (actually walking up the structure of the dn2id DB) ... if we encounter the search base on the way, the alias is part of the search scope, if we reach the root, then not. Computing this intersection is what costs time, and it does not depend on whether the intersection is empty or not. Apparently it is done differently in back_hdb and by extension, back_bdb. I have not analysed that code there in detail but I believe the intersection is computed by actually looking at 2 different ID lists, one containing the aliases (range) again, the other one the actual IDs of the search scope. Which, it appears, is more efficient. So the problem seems to be to compute the relevant aliases to start expanding from. The way it is done now the complexity seems to be linear in the number of aliases, if not number of entries on the LDAP tree. For my own use cases at least it would be much more efficient to just do a tree traversal of the search scope, pick up the relevant aliases and put them in the list. I believe even for large trees this would work quite well... if I search my whole tree for entries with objectClass=alias (deref=never, of course), this is amazingly fast. I am currently looking into how something like that could be implemented, but I need to dive much deeper in the code before I could come up with something worth considering. What are the views of the developers on this? Does the analysis sound plausible? Could a fix be easily obtained? I'm willing to try out any patch thrown my way. Somewhere is written that mdb will replace hdb/bdb eventually ... I believe this problem needs a fix before that can happen. Henrik -- Henrik Bohnenkamp Senior Sysadmin Linux & Applications Operation United Internet Corporate Services GmbH | Brauerstraße 50 | 76135 Karlsruhe | Germany Phone: +49 721 91374 - 4159 E-mail: hbohnenkamp atatatat united-internet.de | Web: www.united-internet.de Amtsgericht Montabaur / HRB 23031 Geschäftsführer: Verena Amann, Markus Kadelke, Frank Krause, Guido Mannshausen Member of United Internet This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that saving, distribution or use of the content of this e-mail in any way is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail.

2 2

Fixing slapo-nops (ITS#8759)
by manu＠netbsd.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hello Following ITS#8759, I am looking for ideas about how to fix slapo-nops. This overlays suppress nilpotent operations that replace an attribute values by the same values. The code is in contrib/slapd-modules/nops/nops.c The problem is that slapo-nops assumes it can free the nilpotent struct Modifications after removing them from the list, but for instande slapo-memberof uses struct Modifications allocated on the stack. Not freeing in slapo-nops is not a fix, since unlinked struct Modifications will not be freed anywhere else, and we will get a memory leak. Would it make sense to add a SLAP_MOD_ONSTACK flag in struct Modification's sm_flags so that we can tell the difference? Any other idea? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu(a)netbsd.org

2 1

sql backend & upate data
by Arianna Milazzo 29 Jun '18

29 Jun '18

Hello! I use openLDAP with a sql backend. I use mySQL with InnoDB engine. Well, if I modify a data on db, I can't see the new value on openLDAP until I restart it. :O I can't restart openLDAP every time I modify something! Any solution? Thanks, Arianna

1 1

Performance problem with slapd instances.
by Saurabh Lahoti 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

Dear, We've started observing strange & peculiar performance behavior for slapd instances. While ldap bind response is more than 1.5 second on one server then on another it's just 0.006 seconds. Both the servers have similar OS, system resources & ldap version. OS: RHEL 6.9 LDAP: 2.4.44 Backend: bdb Could you please suggest some probable causes..? Thanks & Kind Regards, Saurabh Lahoti.

2 2

replicating memberOf attribute
by Chris 27 Jun '18

27 Jun '18

Hi, We are using a provider and three consumers that are not syncing the memberOf attributes of inetOrgPerson entries. memberof and refint modules are loaded on the provider and inetOrgPersons' memberOf attributes are correctly updated on the provider. How can I troubleshoot this? Thanks. Chris.

2 2

Debian getting rid of nis and adding rfc2307bis
by malcolm moore 27 Jun '18

27 Jun '18

Are there any instructions for this anywhere ? I've been seaching and struggling now for several days and I can't work out how to do it. It can't be as difficult as i am making it Ta Mal

2 1

Re: OPenLDAP instances frequently crashes
by Saurabh Lahoti 25 Jun '18

25 Jun '18

Dear, Just before crash below message logged into system logs of servers: Jun 11 23:01:37 musang kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 22184 (slapd) score 888 or sacrifice child Jun 11 23:01:37 musang kernel: Killed process 22184, UID 0, (slapd) total-vm:52226320kB, anon-rss:37170216kB, file-rss:1044kB Although, my physical RAM size is 38 GB & actual database size is 32 GB. Why is it not managing memory appropriately with the help from swap...? ---- *Thanks & Kind Regards,* Saurabh LAHOTI. On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 15:57, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: > --On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 8:56 AM +0200 Michael Ströder > <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > > > On 06/12/2018 06:15 AM, Saurabh Lahoti wrote: > >> Frequently, our OpenLDAP instances crashes thereby leading us into > severe > >> disastrous results & outages for business. > >> > >> While going through slapd logs, it always says " bdb_db_open: database: > >> unclean shutdown detected; attempting recovery" > >> > >> What could possibly go wrong here..? > > > > Which OpenLDAP version are you using? Which OS? > > What does openldap log before it crashes? > > --Quanah > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> > >

3 2

Meta backend and attributes mapping
by ROY Grégory 22 Jun '18

22 Jun '18

Hello, I try somehow to do what I explain below. But without success... I think I'm doing badly for the attribute mapping, maybe it would be better with the rwm overlay? Could someone put me on the right track? -> I have this : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dc=domain1,dc=local dc=domain2, dc=local |__ou=users |__ou= apps |__ou=standard |__ou= app1 |__cn = JOHN DOE | |__cn = DOEJOHN |__ att: sAMAccountName= DOEJOHN | |__att: Appval=valuex |__att: phonenumber=0102030405 |__ou= app2 |__cn= DOEJOHN |__att: Appval=valuey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> and i wan't to do this : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dc=meta,dc=local |_ou=users |_cn= DOEJOHN |_att: phonenumber=0102030405 |_att: App1val=valuex |_att: App2val=valuey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -> I do it this way, with the meta backend : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ######################################################################### defaultsearchbase dc=meta,dc=local ### database META ##################################################### database meta suffix dc=meta,dc=local rootdn "cn=admin,dc=meta,dc=local" rootpw secret ## AD1 USERS ### uri "ldap://ad.domain1.local:389/ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" suffixmassage "ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" "ou=users,ou=standard,dc=domain1,dc=local" idassert-bind bindmethod=simple binddn="CN=reader,DC=domain1,DC=local" credentials="password" mode=self idassert-authzFrom "dn.regex:.*" access to * by * read map attribute uid sAMAccountname ## AD2 APP 1 ############### uri "ldap://ad.domain2.local:389/ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" suffixmassage "ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" "ou=app1,ou=apps,dc=domain2,dc=local" idassert-bind bindmethod=simple binddn="CN=reader,DC=domain2,DC=local" credentials="password" mode=self idassert-authzFrom "dn.regex:.*" access to * by * read map attribute uid cn map attribute App1val Appval ## AD2 APP 2 ############### uri "ldap://ad.domain2.local:389/ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" suffixmassage "ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local" "ou=app2,ou=apps,dc=domain2,dc=local" idassert-bind bindmethod=simple binddn="CN=reader,DC=domain2,DC=local" credentials="password" mode=self idassert-authzFrom "dn.regex:.*" access to * by * read map attribute uid cn map attribute App2val Appval lastmod off ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I get this result, and it does not really correspond to what I want to get .... : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [root@server openldap]# ldapsearch -x "uid=DOEJOHN" -H 'ldap://localhost/' -b dc=meta,dc=local -LLL phonenumber App1val App2val dn: cn=JOHN DOE,ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local phonenumber: 0102030405 dn: cn=DOEJOHN,ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local App1val: valuex dn: cn=DOEJOHN,ou=users,dc=meta,dc=local App2val: valuey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, -- Greg

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

openldap-technical June 2018