Hide Forgot
Description of problem: When a search fails because it requests more than one empty attribute, the search base DN is always logged as "(null)". This can make it difficult to troubleshoot customer issues. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): # rpm -qa | grep 389-ds-base-1 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-18.el7_6.x86_64 # How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: # ldapsearch -xLLL -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -b "dc=TekoSoft,dc=com" -sbase objectclass=* "" Enter LDAP Password: dn: dc=TekoSoft,dc=com # ldapsearch -xLLL -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -b "dc=TekoSoft,dc=com" -sbase objectclass=* "" "" "" Enter LDAP Password: Protocol error (2) # Actual results: Access log excerpt: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.152998700 +0100] conn=21 fd=64 slot=64 connection from ::1 to ::1 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153155808 +0100] conn=21 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153279838 +0100] conn=21 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0.0000198830 dn="cn=directory manager" [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153426653 +0100] conn=21 op=1 SRCH base="dc=TekoSoft,dc=com" scope=0 filter="(objectClass=*)" attrs="" [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153551106 +0100] conn=21 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1 etime=0.0000204349 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153710720 +0100] conn=21 op=2 UNBIND [28/Dec/2018:17:42:10.153723276 +0100] conn=21 op=2 fd=64 closed - U1 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:19.466484844 +0100] conn=22 fd=64 slot=64 connection from ::1 to ::1 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:19.466712558 +0100] conn=22 op=0 BIND dn="cn=Directory Manager" method=128 version=3 [28/Dec/2018:17:42:19.466817359 +0100] conn=22 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 etime=0.0000289684 dn="cn=directory manager" [28/Dec/2018:17:42:19.466979068 +0100] conn=22 op=1 SRCH base="(null)" scope=0 filter="(objectClass=*)", invalid attribute request [28/Dec/2018:17:42:19.466999527 +0100] conn=22 op=1 RESULT err=2 tag=101 nentries=0 etime=0.0000075801 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Expected results: ... SRCH base="dc=TekoSoft,dc=com"" scope=0 filter="(objectClass=*)", invalid attribute request Additional info: Related to the fix in bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624004
Upstream ticket: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50428
Bug fix pushed upstream -> POST
Verified on : [root@ci-vm-10-0-136-194 upstream]# rpm -qa | grep 389 389-ds-base-1.3.10.1-2.el7.x86_64 automated test : s_logs_test.py::test_log_base_dn_when_invalid_attr_request output : ====================================================== warnings summary ====================================================== ds/dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_logs/ds_logs_test.py:735 /mnt/tests/rhds/tests/upstream/ds/dirsrvtests/tests/suites/ds_logs/ds_logs_test.py:735: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \( """ /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.bz1273549 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.bz1358706 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.ds49029 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.ds49232 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.bz1732053 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.ds50510 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.bz1662461 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324 /opt/rh/rh-python36/root/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_pytest/mark/structures.py:324: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.ds50428 - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/mark.html PytestUnknownMarkWarning, -- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/warnings.html =============================================== 1 passed, 9 warnings in 10.71s ===============================================
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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:1064