Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 1044194 - Complex filter in a search request doen't work as expected.
Complex filter in a search request doen't work as expected.
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: 389-ds-base (Show other bugs)
7.0
Unspecified Unspecified
low Severity unspecified
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Rich Megginson
Viktor Ashirov
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-12-17 16:51 EST by Nathan Kinder
Modified: 2015-03-05 04:32 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 389-ds-base-1.3.3.1-1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-03-05 04:32:53 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2015:0416 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Important: 389-ds-base security, bug fix, and enhancement update 2015-03-05 09:26:33 EST

  None (edit)
Description Nathan Kinder 2013-12-17 16:51:32 EST
This bug is created as a clone of upstream ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47521

Hi,

Please find below the reproducer details with the examples.

Complex filter example:

"(&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est))(&(gidnumber=20))(uidnumber=2558)(&(sn=est)))"

In the above filter as you can see, the "uidnumber=2558" sub filter is not associated with ant Boolean operator ( AND or OR or NOT) which results in missing this sub filter from the filter after decoding process. The error log details are given below.
======
[23/Sep/2013:04:42:58 +051800] index_subsys_assign_filter_decoders - before: (&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est))(&(gidNumber=20))(uidNumber=2558)(&(sn=est)))
======
>>> The index subsystem takes the complex filter as argument for the decoding.
[23/Sep/2013:04:42:58 +051800] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0
[23/Sep/2013:04:42:58 +051800] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0
[23/Sep/2013:04:42:58 +051800] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0
=====
[23/Sep/2013:04:42:58 +051800] index_subsys_assign_filter_decoders -  after: (&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est)(gidNumber=20)(sn=est))
=====
>>> After decoding as you can see in the above line, the "uidnumber=2558" is missing which is not going to be considered during the database search.

Here, as the whole of complex filter is preceded by a outer "&" operator, Why the sub filter in this case is being ignored  from the search request?.
Comment 2 Amita Sharma 2014-12-29 02:37:00 EST
[root@dhcp201-126 ~]# ldapadd -x -h localhost -p 389 -D "cn=Directory Manager" -w Secret123  << EOF
> dn: uid=test1,dc=example,dc=com
> cn: t1 est
> sn: est
> givenname: ams
> gidnumber: 20
> uidnumber: 2558
> objectclass: top
> objectclass: person
> objectclass: organizationalPerson
> objectclass: inetOrgPerson
> objectClass: posixAccount
> uid: test1
> mail: ams@example.com
> homeDirectory: /home/test1
> userpassword: Secret123
> EOF
adding new entry "uid=test1,dc=example,dc=com"

[root@dhcp201-126 ~]# ldapsearch -LLL -D "cn=directory manager" -w Secret123 -p 389 -h localhost -b  "dc=example,dc=com" "(&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est))(&(gidnumber=20))(uidnumber=2558)(&(sn=est)))"
dn: uid=test1,dc=example,dc=com
cn: t1 est
sn: est
givenName: ams
gidNumber: 20
uidNumber: 2558
objectClass: top
objectClass: person
objectClass: organizationalPerson
objectClass: inetOrgPerson
objectClass: posixAccount
uid: test1
mail: ams@example.com
homeDirectory: /home/test1
userPassword:: e1NTSEF9bVBaTldhRTl0dGRiZ3pLZ1FsQzFzczR2OUJ6bkNQang5QU1heXc9PQ=

worked as expected, hence VERIFIED.
Comment 4 errata-xmlrpc 2015-03-05 04:32:53 EST
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0416.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.