[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: filter=\'(?=undefined)\'

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:

I'm my SLAPD logs I'm seeing:

2006 Feb 15 13:01:25 EST blackout [local4] [debug] slapd[52201]:
conn=113 op=1 SRCH base=\"dc=collaborativefusion,dc=com\" scope=2
deref=0 filter=\"(?=undefined)\"

$ ldapsearch -Z -h blackout -D \ "cn=Courier,ou=MetaUsers,o=priv,dc=collaborativefusion,dc=com" -W -b \ "dc=collaborativefusion,dc=com" "(objectClass=couriermailaccount)" \

Yea It's something in thier code. If I run this ldapsearch(1) above I get what I expect to see in the logs:

2006 Mar 22 14:22:14 EST blackout [local4] [debug] slapd[52201]: conn=371030 op=2 SRCH base=\"dc=collaborativefusion,dc=com\" scope=2 deref=0 filter=\"(objectClass=CourierMailAccount)\"
2006 Mar 22 14:22:14 EST blackout [local4] [debug] slapd[52201]: conn=371030 op=2 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 nentries=14 text=

"nentries=14" == What I should see.

I guess I'm really curious if the word "undefined", as seen here, is sldapd(8) code, or is *their* code actually fsck'ing up and litterally passing.

I'm assuming it's fun-with-slapd(8), because if I actually try to run ldapsearch(1) with "(?=undefined)" --- even if i escape ? and = with "\", I get:

# extended LDIF
# LDAPv3
# base <dc=collaborativefusion,dc=com> with scope sub
# filter: (?=undefined)
# requesting: ALL

ldapsearch: ldap_search_ext: Bad search filter (-7)


Assuming that "objectClass" is not mistyped, it appears that your slapd doesn't recognize "couriermailaccount" as a valid objectClass. It might not be present in the schema, or the name might be mistyped or anything like that.


Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
Responsabile Open Solution
OpenLDAP Core Team

SysNet s.n.c.
Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office:   +39.02.23998309
Mobile:   +39.333.4963172
Email:    pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it

l8* -lava

x.25 - minix - bitnet - plan9 - 110 bps - ASR 33 - base8