Hide Forgot
Issue Description The numSubordinates value should give the number of immediate subordinates. But it could be inaccurate in cn=monitor case. Package Version and Platform $ cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.2 (Ootpa) $ $ rpm -qa | grep 389-ds-base 389-ds-base-libs-1.4.2.12-2.module+el8dsrv+6428+6e54c518.x86_64 389-ds-base-1.4.2.12-2.module+el8dsrv+6428+6e54c518.x86_64 $ Steps to reproduce Install 389-ds 1.4.2 on RHEL 8.2 ( I can reproduce also on RHEL 7 - 389-ds 1.3.10 ). Create a new suffix with some sample entries. Compare the numSubordinates value on the root entry with the actual number of direct subordinate(s). Actual results The numSubordinates value for the root entry is always higher ( +1 ) than the number of immediate children. There seems to be a miscalculation for the "cn=monitor" entry: $ ldapsearch -LLL -Y EXTERNAL -H 'ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fslapd-<instance>.socket' -b "cn=monitor" -s base "objectclass=*" 1.1 numSubordinates 2> /dev/null dn: cn=monitor numSubordinates: 4 $ ldapsearch -LLL -Y EXTERNAL -H 'ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fslapd-<instance>.socket' -b "cn=monitor" -sone "(|(objectclass=*)(objectclass=ldapsubentry))" 1.1 2>/dev/null | grep -c ^dn: 3 Expected results Both values should be identical. Cloned from: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/51100
Need more time to test it -> moving to ITM 6
ITM strip suspended during end of year break -> moving to ITM 10
You can try to verify it once again as the issue that was blocking this issue was fixed (presumably). The build that should be tested - 389-ds-1.4-8040020210113163752-866effaa
Build Tested: 389-ds-base-1.4.3.16-8.module+el8.4.0+9441+bd0f8b1f.x86_64 ldapsearch -LLL -Y EXTERNAL -H 'ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fslapd-<instance>.socket' -b "cn=monitor" -s base "objectclass=*" 1.1 numSubordinates 2> /dev/null dn: cn=monitor numSubordinates: 3 ldapsearch -LLL -Y EXTERNAL -H 'ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fslapd-<instance>.socket' -b "cn=monitor" -sone "(|(objectclass=*)(objectclass=ldapsubentry))" 1.1 2>/dev/null | grep -c ^dn: 3 -> Marking as verified: tested.
As per comment 9, marking as VERIFIED
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 (389-ds:1.4 bug fix and enhancement update), 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-2021:1835