openldap-technical

openldap-technical@openldap.org

21 participants
9787 discussions

RE26 testing call #1 (2.6.4)
by Quanah Gibson-Mount 05 Oct '22

05 Oct '22

This is the first testing call for OpenLDAP 2.6.4. Depending on the results, this may be the only testing call. Generally, get the code for RE26: <https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/archive/OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_6/o…> Extract, configure, and build. Execute the test suite (via make test) after it is built. Optionally, cd tests && make its to run through the regression suite. Thanks! OpenLDAP 2.6.4 Engineering Fixed client tools to remove 'h' and 'p' options (ITS#9917,ITS#8618) Fixed ldapsearch memory leak with controls (ITS#9860) Fixed libldap ldif_open_urlto check for failure (ITS#9904) Fixed libldap ldap_url_parsehosts check for failure (ITS#9904) Fixed lloadd memory leaks (ITS#9907) Fixed lloadd shutdown code to protect memory correctly (ITS#9913) Fixed slapd memory leak with olcAuthIDRewrite (ITS#6035) Fixed slapd free of config item (ITS#9912) Fixed slapd transactions extended operations cleanup after write (ITS#9892) Fixed slapd-mdb max number of index databases to 256 (ITS#9895) Fixed slapd-monitor memory leaks with lloadd (ITS#9906) Fixed slapd-monitor to free remembered cookies (ITS#9339) Fixed slapo-deref memory leak (ITS#9924) Fixed slapo-dynlist to ignore irrelevant objectClasses (ITS#9897) Fixed slapo-remoteauth memory leaks (ITS#9438) Fixed slapo-rwm memory leaks (ITS#9817) Build Environment Fixed build process to not use gmake specific features (ITS#9894) Fixed slapo-otp testdir creation (ITS#9437) Fixed slapd-tester memory leak (ITS#9908) Fixed usage of non-standard C syntax (ITS#9898, ITS#9899, ITS#9901) Fixed usage of bashism (ITS#9900) Documentation Fixed slapo-unique(5) to clarify when quoting should be used (ITS#9915) Regards, Quanah

4 3

LMDB key marshalling functions
by Søren Holm 28 Sep '22

28 Sep '22

Hi I am working on utilizing LMDB in a project of mine. However I am struggling a bit on how to manage marshalling of keys. - packing of C structure into array - and unpacking - handling parrtial keys for range traversals. Som months ago I read an article named "Shine and poverty key value database LMDB in applications for iOS". It contained some clever techniques. However the article is not longer to be found. I feel like if I do the handling in a wrong way it will be a nightmare. How to you handling your keys? /Søren Holm

1 0

slapo constraint - uri constraint on object DN
by Benjamin Renard 27 Sep '22

27 Sep '22

Hello, I try to affect an uri constraint on an attribute that storing the DN of another object but I don't know what I have to put on the attribute field of the URI. Have any of you already implemented such a constraint? Constraint example for a attribute that storing another attribute value: olcConstraintAttribute: title uri ldap:///dc=catalog,dc=example,dc=com?title?sub?(objectClass=titleCatalog) Thank you in advance, -- Benjamin Renard - Easter-eggs 44-46 rue de l'Ouest - 75014 Paris - France - Métro Gaité Phone: +33 (0) 1 43 35 00 37 - mailto:brenard@easter-eggs.com

2 2

how to add index in replication scenario
by Uwe Sauter 16 Sep '22

16 Sep '22

Dear list, I need to add an index for a new attribute in an active-active replication scenario. I know I need to run slapindex to create the index for existing entries after I changed the configuration file (yes, still on 2.4 with slapd.conf). But what is the correct procedure to update both servers? I'm a bit worried that the setup will become out-of-sync if I just update one server at a time. Would it be better to stop the service on both servers and re-index the databases at the same time before going online again? Regards, Uwe

4 8

no accesslog record on "delete" sync state control
by Zeus Panchenko 13 Sep '22

13 Sep '22

hi I face a weird situation with my LDAP syncrepl consumer [1], please advise ... on "delete" sync state control receiving, I'm trying to search for accesslog object with the just deleted object to use it in further processing, but it is not available yet though if I set delay (sleep) for 1 sec just before the search, then I successfully receive the object so, is it intended behavior? here is this search: https://github.com/z-eos/regather/blob/master/lib/App/Regather.pm#L439 [1] https://github.com/z-eos/regather -- Zeus V. Panchenko . jid:zeus@im.ibs.dn.ua IT Dpt., I.B.S. LLC ..: GMT+2 (EET)

2 1

Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: LMDB 1.0 data.mdb format stability
by Howard Chu 09 Sep '22

09 Sep '22

Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>> Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> schrieb am 08.09.2022 um 01:34 in Nachricht > <4bc80e7e-17f9-b385-6b11-2aab806edc43(a)symas.com>: >> Steffen Michels wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We are considering using the mdb.master3 branch of LMDB, but it is not clear >> to me whether the data.mdb format will remain stable. Is there a chance that >>> another migration of all databases will be required in the future when >> switching now? >> >> Yes. It is still unreleased because additional changes to the freelist >> format are planned, >> and possibly a few other changes. >> >> In any case, mdb_dump/mdb_load will always work for migrating to a new >> version. > > I think at some point an inplace upgrade would be the way to go. > On Linux filesystems, you could even upgrade yout ext3 to btrfs ;-) That will never happen here. Supporting an in-place upgrade requires the library to support old and new formats simultaneously, which is a waste of RAM. Anything that pushes the object code size of the hot path over 64KB is a non-starter. > > Regards, > Ulrich > >> >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Steffen >> >> >> -- >> -- Howard Chu >> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com >> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ >> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ > > > > > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

4 7

LMDB 1.0 data.mdb format stability
by Steffen Michels 07 Sep '22

07 Sep '22

Hi, We are considering using the mdb.master3 branch of LMDB, but it is not clear to me whether the data.mdb format will remain stable. Is there a chance that another migration of all databases will be required in the future when switching now? regards, Steffen

2 1

RE: Openldap policy not working on Ubuntu 22.04
by Mehmet Sağdıç 06 Sep '22

06 Sep '22

Hi, Is there anyone who can help on this issue? -- -- -- -- -- İyi Çalışmalar -- -- -- Mehmet Sağdıç Technical Support Expert | Computer Center Directorate +90 (392) 671 11 11 | 2829 - Gsm : 0548 858 95 43 <https://ciu.edu.tr/> Cyprus International University <https://www.facebook.com/CIUOfficial> <https://www.instagram.com/ciu.official/> <https://twitter.com/CIUOfficial> <https://www.youtube.com/user/uluslararasikibris> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyprus-international-university> <https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_org&hl=tr&org=39727957745 3037268> From: Mehmet Sağdıç [mailto:msagdic@ciu.edu.tr] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:30 PM To: 'openldap-technical(a)openldap.org' Subject: Openldap policy not working on Ubuntu 22.04 Hi, I am using openldap version 2.4.49 on ubuntu 20.04. I did the ubuntu 20.04 - 22.04 version update from the command line using the address below. <https://jumpcloud.com/blog/how-to-upgrade-ubuntu-20-04-to-ubuntu-22-04> https://jumpcloud.com/blog/how-to-upgrade-ubuntu-20-04-to-ubuntu-22-04 After the Ubuntu 22.04 update was finished, the Ldap version automatically changed to the openldap version 2.5.12 and the ldap service did not work. I made the Ldap service run by doing the following: <https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/service-migrating-from-openldap-2-4-x-to-2-5 -x/23807> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/service-migrating-from-openldap-2-4-x-to-2-5- x/23807 But I saw that there is no policy.ldif in cn=config and the policy does not take action. The ldap service is running, but the policy is not working. How can I run policy on Openldap version 2.5.12.

2 1

Q: "Error: Invalid DN syntax (34), additional info: invalid new RDN"
by Ulrich Windl 30 Aug '22

30 Aug '22

Hi! I'm programming some automated changes to our LDAP database, and I have an issue: # Error: Invalid DN syntax (34), additional info: invalid new RDN dn: cn=subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp,dc=services,dc=net,dc=...,dc=de changetype: modrdn newrdn: subntbcst-tftp@247/tcp deleteoldrdn: 1 So is the new RDN "subntbcst-tftp@247/tcp" really invalid? If so it seems an older version of OpenLDAP accepted that as we have such an entry: dn: cn=subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp,dc=services,dc=net,dc=...,dc=de objectClass: ipService cn: subntbcst_tftp cn: subntbcst_tftp@247/tcp createTimestamp: 20130719093351Z ... I saw this exaple in RFC 2849 (so I thought my LDIF shuld be OK): # Modify an entry’s relative distinguished name dn: cn=Paul Jensen, ou=Product Development, dc=airius, dc=com changetype: modrdn newrdn: cn=Paula Jensen deleteoldrdn: 1 Regards, Ulrich

3 5

measurable slower result time with large subtree
by Norbert 26 Aug '22

26 Aug '22

Hi, with OpenLDAP 2.4.47 (running on Debian 10) but also with 2.5.13 from ltb-project.org (running on same Debian 10) I can observe the following: given following rough idea of a tree o=base |- bn=subtree1 | - handful of entries |- bn=subtree2 | - millions of entries |- bn=subtree3 | |- bn=sub-subtree1 | |- bn=sub-subtree2 | |- some entries |- bn=subtree4 ou is an indexed attribute with pres,eq,sub. When now searching with the filter bn=<value> then there is a significant difference when searching for either subtree1 and subtree2 as values in the range of seconds. This means on command line ldapsearch with subtree1 it is around 0.007 seconds and with subtree2 4.5 seconds before the fully finishes. When I change the search filter to "(&(objectClass=bnClass)(bn=<value>))" then this has no real impact to the time needed searching for subtree1 but improves searching subtree2, still it more than 2 times slower than searching for subtree1. Only entries with objectClass=bnClass have the bn attribute but no other entries. Changing the scope to one, yields similar times when searching for subtree1 and subtree2 but the search itself also to cover searching for sub-subtree1 or sub-subtree2 with the same search task as it is not known where such sub-subtree could be found. The only pattern I've found so far is that if there are millions of entries in a subtree then finishing the search takes much longer. The LDAP is using MDB, and has been completely rebuilt (means slapcat/slapadd) several times with always showing the same results. There was no difference between 2.4 and 2.5.13. Is there something which can be improved by changing the configuration? Thanks, Norbert

3 3

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

openldap-technical