openldap-technical

openldap-technical@openldap.org

3 participants
9937 discussions

Slow Mod operations on LDAP
by Bhanush Mehta 09 Jan '23

09 Jan '23

Hi All, We are seeing very slow MOD operations on our ldap (250 MB data dump), while using mdb (data.mdb is 6.4 Gb). The average MOD operation is going to 8-9 seconds. We are seeing 1k disk ops and 6-7MB/s writes. The disk is 4096 IOPS Sata SSD, we have seen write speed to be 126 MB/s generally. The slapd version is slapd (May 14 2022 18:35:44). We the following olcDbIndex for eq: objectClass, entryCSN , entryUUID eq, uid , uidNumber , uniqueMember ,gidNumber , memberUid ,displayName ,cn ,sn , member, source , supervisor ,accountExpiryDate And, sortVals for memberUid and member. Regards Bhanush -- *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* *This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.***** **** *Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the organization. Any information on shares, debentures or similar instruments, recommended product pricing, valuations and the like are for information purposes only. It is not meant to be an instruction or recommendation, as the case may be, to buy or to sell securities, products, services nor an offer to buy or sell securities, products or services unless specifically stated to be so on behalf of the Flipkart group. Employees of the Flipkart group of companies are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorise any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to organizational policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. The organization will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising.***** **** *Our organization accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information *provided,* unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.* _-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_

2 2

OpenLDAP stats logging performance degradation
by Christopher Paul 03 Jan '23

03 Jan '23

Hello OpenLDAP-Technical, Using the oldie but goodie LDAP performance testing tool, SLAMD, I've been doing performance tests. What I found was that stats logging (olcLogLevel: 256) degrades performance significantly. A pity, because it is recommended in the manual. Also, it considered very useful by those of us who've been running OpenLDAP for a while. The test was performed on Dell Workstation Intel Xeon E-2630 v3 @ 2.40Ghz Xen 4.6.5 hypervisor running Linux 4.4.0 Ubuntu 16.04, 4 vcpus pinned to the hypervisor and the other 12 pinned to the OpenLDAP VM. The OpenLDAP VM was allocated 8GB RAM and runs OpenLDAP 2.5.13 (Symas RPM build) on RedHat 8.7. Ten thousand fake users were created in an OU=FakePeople for testing. I am aware that contention with disk I/O can cause problems, so I tried eliminating systemd-journald and rsyslogd in order to test "pure OpenLDAP" response times but was not perfectly successful. I ran slapd in the foreground using "slapd -d 256 ... 2>/dev/null". But then I noticed that systemd-journald still was logging to "session-4.scope". I tried "systemctl stop systemd-journald" and "systemctl stop systemd-journald.socket" and "systemctl stop systemd-journald-dev-log.socket" but was not able to stop systemd-journald from showing up using CPU in "htop". I tried limiting it also by setting RateLimitIntervalSec=1s and RateLimitBurst=1 in /etc/system/journald.conf. This reduced the logging but I still saw "/usr/lib/system/systemd-journald" taking 100% of one vcpu during the performance tests whenever olcLogLevel was set to 256. The test results I will include with this post are from the Asynchronous Search Rate SLAMD job class using LDAPSearch filters of valid random values for indexed attributeTypes "uid" and "mail" matching exact filters (equality match). Using LogLevel 256, the Asynchronous Search Rate test with 3 clients, 2 connection threads each (from laptop i7-1280P vPro Processor), OpenLDAP returned an average 10,932 results completed per second with err=0 and average 21ms response time. Then I ran ldapmodify to changetype: replace olcLogLevel to 0, reran the same test, and saw OpenLDAP perform much better. The same test with olcLogLevel=0 returned 84,286 results per second with err=0 (671% increase) and average response time of 2.6 ms (88% decrease). Watching "htop" during this test showed all vcpus firing a lot more evenly and hotter than the test with olcLogLevel=256; it was very clear how efficient slapd can be without having to do any logging. I ran several samples of each test and picked the best for each of olcLogLevels I tested. I ran other tests like 3 and 4 clients times 50 connections each, also ran Basic Bind Rate and saw similar patterns there. I don't mind sharing my configs or the test data if anyone is interested. And so naturally, I am wondering if this is a known limitation and also whether it is something that can be addressed or is a hard constraint. I guess I had expected some impact as a result of logging (nothing comes for free...) but not this much. Thanks, Chris Paul | Rex Consulting | https://www.rexconsulting.net

4 5

slappasswd generating a supposedly incorrect password hash (only when using {SHA256})
by Ralf Hildebrandt 29 Dec '22

29 Dec '22

Using slapd 2.5.13+dfsg-1ubuntu1 on ubuntu 22.10: ================================================= The password hashes are differing between what "slappasswd" and "openssl dgst" emit: $ slappasswd -s secret -h '{SHA256}' -o module-path=/usr/lib/ldap -o module-load=pw-sha2 {SHA256}WIrrpN3OjEVOUf6yrH1j+o+ODuUuNBo979Od4UXnu54= $ echo -n "secret" | openssl dgst -sha256 -binary | openssl enc -base64 K7gNU3sdo+OL0wNhqoVWhr3g6s1xYv72ol/pe/Unols= With SHA512 on the other hand, the hash generated by different programs is identical: $ slappasswd -s secret -h '{SHA512}' -o module-path=/usr/lib/ldap -o module-load=pw-sha2 {SHA512}vSsar3708Jvp9Szi2NWZZ02Bqp1qRCFpbcTZPdBhnWgs5WtNZKnvCXdhztmeD2cmW192CF5bDufKRpayrW/isg== $ echo -n "secret" | openssl dgst -sha512 -binary | openssl enc -base64 vSsar3708Jvp9Szi2NWZZ02Bqp1qRCFpbcTZPdBhnWgs5WtNZKnvCXdhztmeD2cm W192CF5bDufKRpayrW/isg== On an older box (ubuntu 20.04) with slapd 2.4.49+dfsg-2ubuntu1.9 we're seeing: ============================================================================== $ slappasswd -s secret -h '{SHA256}' -o module-path=/usr/lib/ldap -o module-load=pw-sha2 {SHA256}K7gNU3sdo+OL0wNhqoVWhr3g6s1xYv72ol/pe/Unols= $ echo -n "secret" | openssl dgst -sha256 -binary | openssl enc -base64 K7gNU3sdo+OL0wNhqoVWhr3g6s1xYv72ol/pe/Unols= So why is the SHA256 password hash generated by the 2.5.13 slappasswd command different from the hashes generated by the other programs/versions? -- Ralf Hildebrandt Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Campus Benjamin Franklin (CBF) Haus I | 1. OG | Raum 105 Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 ralf.hildebrandt(a)charite.de https://www.charite.de

3 3

Question about Persistent Search
by pham lan 18 Dec '22

18 Dec '22

Hello, I am new to OpenLDAP. May I ask if Persistent Search is supported in any version of OpenLdap Server? I installed version 2.4.46 from Rocky repo and it does not seem to support persistent search.

5 8

lloadd Proxied Authorization Denied (123)
by Stefan Kania 15 Dec '22

15 Dec '22

I now took the example configuration and changed it to my settings: --------------------- TLSCertificateFile /opt/symas/etc/openldap/example-net-cert.pem TLSCertificateKeyFile /opt/symas/etc/openldap/example-net-key.pem TLSCACertificateFile /opt/symas/etc/openldap/cacert.pem pidfile /var/symas/run/slapd.pid argsfile /var/symas/run/slapd.args loglevel 256 modulepath /opt/symas/lib/openldap moduleload lloadd.la backend lload listen "ldap://:1389 ldaps://:1636" feature proxyauthz TLSShareSlapdCTX true bindconf bindmethod=simple network-timeout=5 tls_cacert="/opt/symas/etc/openldap/cacert.pem" tls_cert="/opt/symas/etc/openldap/example-net-cert.pem" tls_key="/opt/symas//etc/openldap/example-net-key.pem" binddn=uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net credentials=geheim tier roundrobin backend-server uri=ldaps://ldap01.example.net starttls=critical retry=5000 max-pending-ops=50 conn-max-pending=10 numconns=10 bindconns=5 backend-server uri=ldaps://ldap02.example.net starttls=critical retry=5000 max-pending-ops=50 conn-max-pending=10 numconns=10 bindconns=5 database monitor --------------------- The bind-user exists in the database of the backend-server. If i start the loadbalancer I can see that the connection are established. -------ldap01----------- Dez 14 21:07:12 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1380 fd=46 ACCEPT from IP=192.168.56.40:38674 (IP=0.0.0.0:636) Dez 14 21:07:12 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1380 fd=46 TLS established tls_ssf=256 ssf=256 tls_proto=TLSv1.3 tls_cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 Dez 14 21:07:12 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1380 op=0 BIND dn="uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" method=128 Dez 14 21:07:12 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1380 op=0 BIND dn="uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=256 ------------------------ I see the same massages on ldap02, so that's ok The I do a search from a different machine: ------------- root@ldap03:~# ldapsearch -x -D uid=repl-user,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net -w geheim -H ldaps://loadbalancer.example.net:1636 -LLL Proxied Authorization Denied (123) Additional information: not authorized to assume identity ------------ The uid=repl-user has read permission to all objects and attributes. On ldap01 I see: ---------ldap01------------- Dez 14 21:09:13 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1371 op=0 BIND dn="uid=repl-user,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" method=128 Dez 14 21:09:13 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1371 op=0 BIND dn="uid=repl-user,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=256 Dez 14 21:09:13 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1371 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 qtime=0.000033 etime=0.015255 text= ----------------------------- on ldap02 --------ldap02---------- Dez 14 21:09:13 ldap02 slapd[300]: conn=1306 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=123 qtime=0.000044 etime=0.000235 nentries=0 text=not authorized to assume identity Dez 14 21:09:13 ldap02 slapd[300]: conn=1306 op=1 do_search: get_ctrls failed ------------------------ Why do I get different log-entries on the backend-server? And what did I forgot? When I do a ldapsearch with uid=lloadd I get: ------------------- root@ldap03:~# ldapsearch -x -D uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net -w geheim -H ldaps://loadbalancer.example.net:1636 -LLL dn: dc=example,dc=net objectClass: domain objectClass: dcObject dc: example ------------------- That's the only object the user has permissions to read. log from ldap01 -------------------- Dez 14 21:14:04 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1381 op=0 BIND dn="uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" method=128 Dez 14 21:14:04 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1381 op=0 BIND dn="uid=lloadd,ou=users,dc=example,dc=net" mech=SIMPLE bind_ssf=0 ssf=256 Dez 14 21:14:04 ldap01 slapd[550]: conn=1381 op=0 RESULT tag=97 err=0 qtime=0.000021 etime=0.008984 text= -------------------- and log from ldap02 -------------------- Dez 14 21:14:04 ldap02 slapd[300]: conn=1308 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=net" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(objectClass=*)" Dez 14 21:14:04 ldap02 slapd[300]: conn=1308 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 qtime=0.000022 etime=0.002048 nentries=1 text= -------------------- That's also ok, I think . The final version should be that the binduser uid=lloadd will not see anything. So what's the point I'm missing to get proxyauthz work correctly?

4 9

lloadd standalone daemon
by Stefan Kania 15 Dec '22

15 Dec '22

Hi to all, I want to test the "lloadd" as a standalone daemon. I'm using the symas OpenLDAP 2.6 packages on a debian 11 system. I can only find the module "lloadd.la" but not the standalone daemon. If I want to us it, do I have to compile it myself? What would be the better way using the standalone daemon or use it as a module as part of slapd. Stefan

3 5

Service Accounts in Consumer databases
by thomaswilliampritchard＠gmail.com 13 Dec '22

13 Dec '22

Hello, I am building a health check for a consumer that replicates a subset of data from a provider's application database. I do not want to incorporate a service account into the replicated data set because it is not my organization to be adding service users to. I also do not want to use the consumer root credentials for health checking but would prefer to add a service account with limited ACL access to the consumers I can use to issue test binds and ensure SLAPD is running properly. Do you have suggestions on how I can add a service account to a consumer? Currently we are getting "ldap_add: Server is unwilling to perform (53) additional info: shadow context; no update referral" which I believe is because consumers are simply read only. Thanks for the consideration Thomas

1 0

Overlays accesslog and dynlist
by Carsten Jäckel 13 Dec '22

13 Dec '22

Hello experts, we are using OpenLDAP 2.5.13 and we are facing problems using the accesslog overlay along with the dynlist overlay. As long as we use only the accesslog overlay the logging works as expected. Successfully logged search access: ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com -W -b dc=users,dc=example,dc=com cn=user1 mail Result of ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=log -W -b cn=log objectclass=*: ###################################### ... # 20221212145029.000000Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000000Z,cn=log objectClass: auditBind reqStart: 20221212145029.000000Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000001Z reqType: bind reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: reqDN: cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqVersion: 3 reqMethod: SIMPLE # 20221212145029.000002Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000002Z,cn=log objectClass: auditSearch reqStart: 20221212145029.000002Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000003Z reqType: search reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqDN: dc=users,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqScope: sub reqDerefAliases: never reqAttrsOnly: FALSE reqFilter: (cn=user1) reqAttr: mail reqEntries: 1 reqTimeLimit: -1 reqSizeLimit: -1 # 20221212145029.000004Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000004Z,cn=log objectClass: auditObject reqStart: 20221212145029.000004Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000005Z reqType: unbind reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com ###################################### After adding overlay dynlist the information in the accesslog database after the same search operation ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com -W -b dc=users,dc=example,dc=com cn=user1 mail is as follows: ###################################### ... # 20221212144859.000000Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000000Z,cn=log objectClass: auditBind reqStart: 20221212144859.000000Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000001Z reqType: bind reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: reqDN: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqVersion: 3 reqMethod: SIMPLE # 20221212144859.000002Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000002Z,cn=log objectClass: auditSearch reqStart: 20221212144859.000002Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000003Z reqType: search reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqDN: dc=users,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqScope: sub reqDerefAliases: never reqAttrsOnly: FALSE reqFilter: (objectClass=groupOfURLs) reqAttr: memberURL reqEntries: 0 reqTimeLimit: -1 reqSizeLimit: -1 # 20221212144859.000005Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000005Z,cn=log objectClass: auditObject reqStart: 20221212144859.000005Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000006Z reqType: unbind reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com ###################################### Is it possible that the configuration of the dynlist overlay somehow overrides the configuration of the accesslog overlay? Changing the order of the overlays has no impact. Are there some dependencies between the accesslog and the dynlist overlay that we didn't attend to in the slapo-accesslog/slapo-dynlist manuals? Is there something wrong in our configuration? Configuration: ###################################### dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcMdbConfig olcDatabase: {1}mdb ... olcSuffix: dc=example,dc=com olcSyncUseSubentry: FALSE dn: olcOverlay={0}refint,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcRefintConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {0}refint olcRefintAttribute: member olcRefintAttribute: memberOf olcRefintNothing: cn=tgroup,dc=groups,dc=example,dc=com dn: olcOverlay={1}ppolicy,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcPPolicyConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {1}ppolicy olcPPolicyHashCleartext: TRUE dn: olcOverlay={2}dynlist,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcDynListConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {2}dynlist olcDynListAttrSet: {0}groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames dn: olcOverlay={3}lastbind,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcLastBindConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {3}lastbind olcLastBindPrecision: 86400 dn: olcOverlay={4}accesslog,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcAccessLogConfig objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcAccessLogDB: cn=log olcOverlay: {4}accesslog olcAccessLogOld: (objectClass=inetOrgPerson) olcAccessLogOldAttr: description olcAccessLogOps: all olcAccessLogPurge: 01:00 00:15 ###################################### Any help is apreciated, thank you very much in advance. Carsten

3 2

Detecting replication delay when replicating a subset of data
by thomaswilliampritchard＠gmail.com 12 Dec '22

12 Dec '22

Hello, Under typical circumstances we run a config database and have a single application database for ldap data. We run consumers replicating from providers where they replicate the entire application database. We detect delayed replication by querying consumer CSNs and comparing them to the provider CSNs to determine if any consumers have delayed replication through a health check script that executes every few minutes. For one particular use case we replicate a subset of the application database, but our replication check cannot work for this use case. It appears because we're not replicating the entire database we do not copy the provider CSNs over to the consumers (which live at the base level, and we're copying a DIT below that level) and therefore I cannot ask the consumers what their 'latest csn' is since they do not seem to have one. Is there any recommended way I can check that the consumer replication is functioning properly when replicating a subset of the provider database? Thanks for the consideration. Tom

5 4

question about access control
by Alex Samad - Yieldbroker 10 Dec '22

10 Dec '22

Hi From the online doco re > Level Privileges Description > none = 0 no access > disclose = d needed for information disclosure on error > auth = dx needed to authenticate (bind) > compare = cdx needed to compare > search = scdx needed to apply search filters > read = rscdx needed to read search results > write = wrscdx needed to modify/rename > manage = mwrscdx needed to manage I couldn't find out what the difference between manage and write is what does the M allow for. olcAccess: to dn.subtree="ou=Users," by dn.exact="cn=directory,ou=Roles," manage by * break so for the subtree ou=User I want to allow cn=directory to add / modify / delete any children of ou=Users. Reading the doco its seems like I only need to give it write access, what can I do extra with manage ? Also for userPassword attr to write to it do I need to have the read or can I just have =wd Thanks Alex

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

openldap-technical