[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#8618) ldapsearch - unexpected behavior with
I am also not a C programmer. I've not even looked at patch at this point.
I agree best practice says hostname are limited to specific ASCII characters.
And underscore are indeed not included.
However DNS name in general only have very few restriction (RFC2181) (2).
I did some tests using the 'host' and 'dig' command and they do not perform
additional validation. For example (2):
$ host 'ldap://.test.com'
ldap://.test.com has address 188.8.131.52
I would expect C library for resolving DNS names to already enforce those basic
constrain. I believe we should be careful about performing additional
Micheal, you are *right* about the man page saying _hostname_. Indeed OpenLDAP
only accepting hostname as per best practice/RFC might be the most correct
behavior. However we can not change this behavior without breakable. consider:
- Underscore are not that uncommon with Active Directory
- What about internationalized DNS name
- ... (probably more)
Therefore I believe such change could only be done in a major release. And at
that point we might just remove the depreciated '-h' option altogether.
I don't know how OpenLDAP code work. I have a suspicion it might
transform hostname + port into a URI.
The ITC shows that (for some cases) hostname are handled differently when:
1. Using only '-h' without '-p'
2. Using both '-h' and '-p'
And this is clearly not a correct behavior.
See RFC for reference but essentially:
- A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators)
- Each part of the domain (label) can be between 1 and 63 octets
test.com DNS seems to simply return the same A record for any subdomain
(wildcard). It highlights that wierd name like works at the DNS level.
PS: I exchanged a few email regarding DNS/hostname with Lawrence off the list. I
believe this email summarizes the main points from my perspective.
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 18:48 +0000, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > I believe the following patch addresses this problem. I am still a
> > bit conf used about what constitutes a DNS name. Alex has suggested
> > they should contain an underscore. My colleague who reviewed the code
> > had a different opinion.
> Disclaimer: Since I'm not a C programmer I did not really review your
> patch in detail but just want to add some general notes.
> 1. Reviewing this ticket my is that the only problem is that
> -h also accepts a LDAP URI because -H should be used instead.
> IIRC -h was only meant to take an IP address or hostname.
> Therefore I'd strongly recommend to simply reject an LDAP URI for -h.
> Is that your goal?
> 2. The term "DNS name" is a bit too blurry. In case of option -h it
> should be an IP address or . And according to best practices
> hostnames SHOULD NOT contain underscores.
> Whether you _allow_ underscores to accommodate some strange setups is
> your decision.
> Ciao, .