[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Looks like a bug 8'(
Hi I can try to answer the stuff about the version (haven't read much
of the thread... but here goes).
Try starting your ldap server with debug flag 1
/path/to/libexec/slapd -d 1 -h "ldap://127.0.0.1:389/" [etc]
For a solaris build that I have, it comes up as (/etc/init.d/slapd is
a wrapper script I wrote)
root@myserver /etc/init.d/slapd debug
starting slapd in debug mode: 1
@(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.0.27-Release (Mon Jan 6 13:05:15 PST 2003) $
daemon_init: listen on ldap://myserver:389/
daemon_init: 1 listeners to open...
daemon: initialized ldap://myserver:389/
daemon_init: 1 listeners opened
slapd init: initiated server.
TLS: PRNG not been seeded with enough data
slapd startup: initiated.
Check your DB as well (I've compiled mine against bdb.3.3.11)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuel Blot" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sunday, February 2, 2003 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: Looks like a bug 8'(
> > Don't let the folks on the list guess:
> > what exaclty were the circumstances ?
> > - exact OpenLDAP version
> I wish I know how to get the version - I would have reported it if
> I knew how to obtain it for
> I know it's OpenLDAP 2.1.x, but I'm not sure of the build. Perhaps
> 2.1.4I'm surprised slapd daemon does not have a -v or --version
> command line swtich: it will help.
> > - Hardware (CPU)
> AMD Athlon 1.1GHz on an AsusTech A7M266 motherboard as far as I
> remember (this is from a remote
> > - OS
> Linux 2.4.18 SuSE 8.0 - but I've recompiled OpenLDAP from the
> source (SuSE 8.0 comes with
> OpenLDAP 2.0.x and I need <= & >= comparison operators in filters)
> I may have the configure log files somewhere. Would that help ?
> > - your input
> Something really basic with ldapsearch:
> ldapsearch -D "uid=<login>,<baseDN>" -b "<baseDN>" -x -W 'cn=<aCN>'
> I guess the problem comes from a specific ACL rule with cn and uid
> attributes involved
> Something like:
> loglevel 992
> access to attr=uid,cn
> by group="cn=administrators,<baseDN>" write
> by users read
> by * read
> The last-but-one line is useless, but I was trying different
> syntax at that time: I discovered
> the problem by looking at the syslog output file some seconds later.
> > Is the error reproduceable ?
> Probably, but I did not keep the ACL that led to this issue. I
> should have, but I'm trying to
> get the ACL to work for over than 1 month, so I focus on this main
> point since this is getting
> really annoying: I wish I could focus on other issues than ACLs
> 8') ...
> If I can reproduce this issue, I will keep the ACL.