Re: (ITS#5860) slapd memeory leak under openldap 2.4
by ando＠sys-net.it
rlvcosta(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> --0-1358063323-1230648878=:64021
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Pierangelo,
>
> I could run the valgrind but at this time I do not have the DB with the aro=
> und 4 million subscribers. In this condition, with a small number of users,=
> I already could see some "definitive" memory leaks and I believe they are =
> associated with OpenLdap.
>
> Just for a history I already compiled the openldap 2.4.11 souce code withou=
> t modules and TLS since many lists make reference to some possible issues i=
> n RHEL with TLS. Even so I could not have a load without the possible memor=
> y leak.
>
> So I do not believe the problems are in the RHEL libtool or glibc.
>
> In any case the result for the valgrind is (short number of entrances at th=
> is time):
You probably need to use an unstripped binary in order to find out where
mallocs/frees occur. Most of the occurrences you notice are either
one-time leaks. Moreover, 2.4.13 is out, and it might have fixed some.
I suggest you further investigate using the latest code, using an
unstripped binary.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Fax: +39 0382 476497
Email: ando(a)sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5860) slapd memeory leak under openldap 2.4
by rlvcosta＠yahoo.com
--0-1358063323-1230648878=:64021
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pierangelo,
I could run the valgrind but at this time I do not have the DB with the aro=
und 4 million subscribers. In this condition, with a small number of users,=
I already could see some "definitive" memory leaks and I believe they are =
associated with OpenLdap.
Just for a history I already compiled the openldap 2.4.11 souce code withou=
t modules and TLS since many lists make reference to some possible issues i=
n RHEL with TLS. Even so I could not have a load without the possible memor=
y leak.
So I do not believe the problems are in the RHEL libtool or glibc.
In any case the result for the valgrind is (short number of entrances at th=
is time):
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Memcheck, a memory error detector.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Copyright (C) 2002-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward =
et al.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Using LibVEX rev 1575, a library for dynamic binary trans=
lation.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Copyright (C) 2004-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by OpenWorks LLP.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Using valgrind-3.1.1, a dynamic binary instrumentation fr=
amework.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D Copyright (C) 2000-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward =
et al.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D For more details, rerun with: -v
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 86 f=
rom 2)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D malloc/free: in use at exit: 751 bytes in 32 blocks.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D malloc/free: 29,775 allocs, 29,743 frees, 22,150,722 byte=
s allocated.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D searching for pointers to 32 not-freed blocks.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D checked 8,191,292 bytes.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 16 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x40056BF: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:279)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x519364: _dlerror_run (in /lib/libdl-2.3.4.s=
o)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x518D10: dlopen@@GLIBC_2.1 (in /lib/libdl-2.=
3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x52D80D: _sasl_get_plugin (in /usr/lib/libsa=
sl2.so.2.0.19)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x52DC61: _sasl_load_plugins (in /usr/lib/lib=
sasl2.so.2.0.19)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x52B063: sasl_server_init (in /usr/lib/libsa=
sl2.so.2.0.19)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x80C82C0: slap_sasl_init (in /usr/libexec/sl=
apd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.=
4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 22 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 2=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB77567: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB780C8: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB7A79D: lt_dlsetsearchpath (in /usr/lib/lib=
ltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x8068147: (within /usr/libexec/slapd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 24 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 3=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x400579F: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:306)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x8151E6F: ber_bvarray_add (in /usr/libexec/s=
lapd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x44DD627: ???
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 28 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB77567: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB780C8: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB78CDC: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB7972B: lt_dlopen (in /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3=
.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0xB7980C: lt_dlopenext (in /usr/lib/libltdl.s=
o.3.1.0)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x80CA1E3: module_load (in /usr/libexec/slapd=
)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 28 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 5=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3D81D7: _dl_map_object_deps (in /lib/ld-2.3=
.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x4E7158: dl_open_worker (in /lib/tls/libc-2.=
3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3D90FD: _dl_catch_error (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.s=
o)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x4E7CB7: _dl_open (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so=
)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x4E904C: do_dlopen (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.s=
o)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3D90FD: _dl_catch_error (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.s=
o)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x4E912D: __libc_dlopen_mode (in /lib/tls/lib=
c-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x561087: pthread_cancel_init (in /lib/tls/li=
bpthread-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x5611FC: _Unwind_ForcedUnwind (in /lib/tls/l=
ibpthread-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x55F020: __pthread_unwind (in /lib/tls/libpt=
hread-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x55AF8F: pthread_exit (in /lib/tls/libpthrea=
d-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 32 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 6=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x4005728: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:306)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x810E504: rewrite_mapper_register (in /usr/l=
ibexec/slapd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.=
4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 77 bytes in 5 blocks are still reachable in loss record 7=
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/sl=
apd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3D6363FF: ???
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 252 bytes in 18 blocks are definitely lost in loss record=
8 of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/sl=
apd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 272 bytes in 2 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 9 =
of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x40056BF: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:279)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3DB71A: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.=
so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x55A91E: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (in /lib/=
tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x811D4A9: ldap_pvt_thread_create (in /usr/li=
bexec/slapd)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.=
4.so)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=20
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D LEAK SUMMARY:
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 definitely lost: 280 bytes in 20 blocks.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 possibly lost: 272 bytes in 2 blocks.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 still reachable: 199 bytes in 10 blocks.
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
My suspicious is this memory leak is happening at ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/l=
ibexec/slapd). Or in the part above :
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D 252 bytes in 18 blocks are definitely lost in loss record=
8 of 9
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)
=3D=3D32608=3D=3D=A0=A0=A0 by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/sl=
apd)
Since right now I do not have a large number of entrances in the DB the sea=
rch is easily cached in memory and the response is very quick.
I will load again the DB but since this takes around 6-8hours I sent this i=
nitial result from valgrind since it can already give some directions. Tomo=
rrow I should send more information related with a more heavy load DB.
I would like your help to see if this can identify something related with t=
his memory leakage.
Please let me know if I can help in this meantime with something else.
Best regards,
Rodrigo.
--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> wrote:
From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it>
Subject: Re: (ITS#5860) slapd memeory leak under openldap 2.4
To: rlvcosta(a)yahoo.com
Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 7:05 PM
rlvcosta(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Rodrigo Costa
> Version: 2.4.11
> OS: RHEL4 U4
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (201.82.161.220)
>=20
>=20
> Opeldap dev team,
>=20
> I'm facing an issue and after many tentatives I believe this is really
a bug
> that maybe could be identified and solved by openldap community. I tried
to
> include dmalloc into openldap 2.4.11 code but even I could compile with i=
t
any
> tentative to execute the code generated "Segmentation Fault" so
I could not use
> dmalloc to identify where the memory leak is happening.
Can you try with valgrind?
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Fax: +39 0382 476497
Email: ando(a)sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
=0A=0A=0A
--0-1358063323-1230648878=:64021
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Pierangelo,<br><br>I could run the valgrind but at this time I do not have the DB with the around 4 million subscribers. In this condition, with a small number of users, I already could see some "definitive" memory leaks and I believe they are associated with OpenLdap.<br><br>Just for a history I already compiled the openldap 2.4.11 souce code without modules and TLS since many lists make reference to some possible issues in RHEL with TLS. Even so I could not have a load without the possible memory leak.<br><br>So I do not believe the problems are in the RHEL libtool or glibc.<br><br>In any case the result for the valgrind is (short number of entrances at this time):<br><br>==32608== Memcheck, a memory error detector.<br>==32608== Copyright (C) 2002-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.<br>==32608== Using LibVEX rev 1575, a library for dynamic binary
translation.<br>==32608== Copyright (C) 2004-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by OpenWorks LLP.<br>==32608== Using valgrind-3.1.1, a dynamic binary instrumentation framework.<br>==32608== Copyright (C) 2000-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.<br>==32608== For more details, rerun with: -v<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 86 from 2)<br>==32608== malloc/free: in use at exit: 751 bytes in 32 blocks.<br>==32608== malloc/free: 29,775 allocs, 29,743 frees, 22,150,722 bytes allocated.<br>==32608== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v<br>==32608== searching for pointers to 32 not-freed blocks.<br>==32608== checked 8,191,292 bytes.<br>==32608== <br>==32608== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x40056BF: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:279)<br>==32608== by 0x519364: _dlerror_run (in
/lib/libdl-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x518D10: dlopen@@GLIBC_2.1 (in /lib/libdl-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x52D80D: _sasl_get_plugin (in /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2.0.19)<br>==32608== by 0x52DC61: _sasl_load_plugins (in /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2.0.19)<br>==32608== by 0x52B063: sasl_server_init (in /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2.0.19)<br>==32608== by 0x80C82C0: slap_sasl_init (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 22 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 2 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608== by 0xB77567: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB780C8: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB7A79D: lt_dlsetsearchpath (in
/usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0x8068147: (within /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 24 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 3 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x400579F: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:306)<br>==32608== by 0x8151E6F: ber_bvarray_add (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== by 0x44DD627: ???<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 28 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608== by 0xB77567: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB780C8: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB78CDC: (within /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB7972B: lt_dlopen (in /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0xB7980C:
lt_dlopenext (in /usr/lib/libltdl.so.3.1.0)<br>==32608== by 0x80CA1E3: module_load (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 28 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 5 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608== by 0x3D81D7: _dl_map_object_deps (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x4E7158: dl_open_worker (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x3D90FD: _dl_catch_error (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x4E7CB7: _dl_open (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x4E904C: do_dlopen (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x3D90FD: _dl_catch_error (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x4E912D: __libc_dlopen_mode (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x561087: pthread_cancel_init (in
/lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x5611FC: _Unwind_ForcedUnwind (in /lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x55F020: __pthread_unwind (in /lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x55AF8F: pthread_exit (in /lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 32 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 6 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608== by 0x4005728: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:306)<br>==32608== by 0x810E504: rewrite_mapper_register (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 77 bytes in 5 blocks are still reachable in loss record 7 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608==
by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== by 0x3D6363FF: ???<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 252 bytes in 18 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 8 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>==32608== by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== <br>==32608== 272 bytes in 2 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 9 of 9<br>==32608== at 0x40056BF: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:279)<br>==32608== by 0x3DB71A: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x55A91E: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (in /lib/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== by 0x811D4A9: ldap_pvt_thread_create (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br>==32608== by 0x3FFDE2: (below main) (in /lib/tls/libc-2.3.4.so)<br>==32608== <br>==32608== LEAK
SUMMARY:<br>==32608== definitely lost: 280 bytes in 20 blocks.<br>==32608== possibly lost: 272 bytes in 2 blocks.<br>==32608== still reachable: 199 bytes in 10 blocks.<br>==32608== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.<br><br>My suspicious is this memory leak is happening at ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/slapd). Or in the part above :<br><br>==32608== 252 bytes in 18 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 8 of 9<br>
==32608== at 0x4004405: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149)<br>
==32608== by 0x8150E2E: ber_memalloc_x (in /usr/libexec/slapd)<br><br>Since right now I do not have a large number of entrances in the DB the search is easily cached in memory and the response is very quick.<br><br>I will load again the DB but since this takes around 6-8hours I sent this initial result from valgrind since it can already give some directions. Tomorrow I should send more information related with a more heavy load DB.<br><br>I would like your help to see if this can identify something related with this memory leakage.<br><br>Please let me know if I can help in this meantime with something else.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Rodrigo.<span style="font-family: monospace;"><br><br></span>
--- On <b>Sat, 12/20/08, Pierangelo Masarati <i><ando(a)sys-net.it></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it><br>Subject: Re: (ITS#5860) slapd memeory leak under openldap 2.4<br>To: rlvcosta(a)yahoo.com<br>Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org<br>Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 7:05 PM<br><br><pre>rlvcosta(a)yahoo.com wrote:<br>> Full_Name: Rodrigo Costa<br>> Version: 2.4.11<br>> OS: RHEL4 U4<br>> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/<br>> Submission from: (NULL) (201.82.161.220)<br>> <br>> <br>> Opeldap dev team,<br>> <br>> I'm facing an issue and after many tentatives I believe this is really<br>a bug<br>> that maybe could be identified and solved by openldap community. I tried<br>to<br>> include dmalloc into openldap 2.4.11 code but even I could compile with it<br>any<br>> tentative to execute
the code generated "Segmentation Fault" so<br>I could not use<br>> dmalloc to identify where the memory leak is happening.<br><br>Can you try with valgrind?<br><br>p.<br><br><br>Ing. Pierangelo Masarati<br>OpenLDAP Core Team<br><br>SysNet s.r.l.<br>via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA<br>http://www.sys-net.it<br>-----------------------------------<br>Office: +39 02 23998309<br>Mobile: +39 333 4963172<br>Fax: +39 0382 476497<br>Email: ando(a)sys-net.it<br>-----------------------------------<br><br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>
--0-1358063323-1230648878=:64021--
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5872) slapo-cloak
by manu＠netbsd.org
Pierangelo Masarati <ando(a)sys-net.it> wrote:
> At a quick glance, you're leaking the callback containing the cloak
> response. You should remove (and free it) when called with REP_RESULT
> as sr_type, and add a slap_freeself_cb() cleanup hook. You won't notice
> the memory leak unless you build slapd with SLAP_NO_SL_MALLOC set, or
> unless your overlay operates within a slab memory intensive context.
Here is an update, I hope it addresses the concerns you raised:
ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/manu-cloak-20081230.c
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu(a)netbsd.org
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5875) sparc64/gcc-3.3 build fix
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org
On Dec 28, 2008, at 4:52 PM, kurt(a)openldap.org wrote:
> On a technical note, use of platform macros (sun and gcc versions)
> should be avoided. Instead, autoconf should be used to detect
> conditions for need to be adapted for.
>
> On an IPR review, I suspect it would be easier to update to:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/hash/sha1.c?rev=1.21;c...
>
> then to try to identify the contributors and get their "okay".
I should note that, from a technical point of view, it might also be
better to integrate the latest from OpenBSD. This would hopefully
provide a SHA1 implementation which works on more platforms than the
current version, or the current version as modified by Klaus's patch.
-- Kurt
14 years, 11 months
Fwd: (ITS#5875) sparc64/gcc-3.3 build fix
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org
For Klaus's benefit.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org>
> Date: December 29, 2008 11:01:08 AM PST
> To: manu(a)netbsd.org
> Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org
> Subject: Re: (ITS#5875) sparc64/gcc-3.3 build fix
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2008, at 10:37 PM, manu(a)netbsd.org wrote:
>
>> Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> NetBSD's pkgsrc has a 5 years old OpenLDAP patch that address a
>>>> build
>>>> problem on sparc64 with gcc 3.x (x<= 3). The build failure is
>>>> caused by
>>>> a bug in gcc.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would not hurt to commit this patch in OpenLDAP CVS:
>>>> everything is guarded by macros, so it cannot cause any harm to
>>>> unaffected systems, and the workaround has been tested by NetBSD
>>>> people
>>>> for 5 years.
>>>
>>> Kurt will probably have something to say about this too - this is
>>> more than a
>>> couple-line patch, it needs to be submitted by its original
>>> author, with
>>> appropriate rights attributions etc.
>>
>> Klaus Klein <kleink(a)kleink.org> is the contributor (I added him to
>> the
>> recipients of this messages).
>>
>> Do we need anything more than an e-mail with the patch and the
>> excerpt
>> below correctly filled?
>>
>> "This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the
>> modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the following
>> patch(es) were developed by <YOUR NAME> <YOUR-EMAIL-ADDRESS>. I
>> have not
>> assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. "
>
> One would also need an appropriate "rights statement". See http://www.openldap.org/devel/contributing.html
> .
>
> -- Kurt
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5875) sparc64/gcc-3.3 build fix
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org
On Dec 28, 2008, at 10:37 PM, manu(a)netbsd.org wrote:
> Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote:
>
>>> NetBSD's pkgsrc has a 5 years old OpenLDAP patch that address a
>>> build
>>> problem on sparc64 with gcc 3.x (x<= 3). The build failure is
>>> caused by
>>> a bug in gcc.
>>>
>>> I think it would not hurt to commit this patch in OpenLDAP CVS:
>>> everything is guarded by macros, so it cannot cause any harm to
>>> unaffected systems, and the workaround has been tested by NetBSD
>>> people
>>> for 5 years.
>>
>> Kurt will probably have something to say about this too - this is
>> more than a
>> couple-line patch, it needs to be submitted by its original author,
>> with
>> appropriate rights attributions etc.
>
> Klaus Klein <kleink(a)kleink.org> is the contributor (I added him to the
> recipients of this messages).
>
> Do we need anything more than an e-mail with the patch and the excerpt
> below correctly filled?
>
> "This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the
> modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the following
> patch(es) were developed by <YOUR NAME> <YOUR-EMAIL-ADDRESS>. I have
> not
> assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. "
One would also need an appropriate "rights statement". See http://www.openldap.org/devel/contributing.html
.
-- Kurt
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5872) slapo-cloak
by hyc＠symas.com
ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
> michael(a)stroeder.com wrote:
>> ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
>>> Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>>> ando(a)sys-net.it writes:
>>>>> On a related note, if this can be considered of general usefulness, LDAP
>>>>> specs would need to be changed in order to define a finer grain of
>>>>> attribute request; something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> empty or "*" ; all user, except attrs that need to be explicitly req.
>>>>> "+" ; all operational
>>>>> <all including attrs that need to be explicitly requested>
>>>>> <...>
>>>> Would it be cleaner if slapo-cloak redefines the attributes to be
>>>> operational, or to behave as if they are? Maybe give them an
>>>> X-AS-OPERATIONAL extension? Or would that just mess up schema code,
>>>> things like attribute inheritance?
>>> I think things would mess up.
>> I'd also recommend *not* to turn user attribute types into operational
>> attribute types. This would certainly confuse schema-aware clients.
>>
>>> Moreover, I see a number of features system administrators could ask
>>> for; e.g. hide attributes only when matching a URI (base, scope,
>>> filter),
>> Well, that's something many overlays would benefit from.
>
> In fact, based on recent modifications to slapo-constraint(5) and other
> overlays, I'm considering the opportunity to introduce generic helpers
> to parse and check this type of generic limitations.
We've discussed this before - overlays ought to have a configurable range of
effect, using an X.500 Subtree Search Specification.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5872) slapo-cloak
by ando＠sys-net.it
michael(a)stroeder.com wrote:
> ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
>> Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>> ando(a)sys-net.it writes:
>>>> On a related note, if this can be considered of general usefulness, LDAP
>>>> specs would need to be changed in order to define a finer grain of
>>>> attribute request; something like:
>>>>
>>>> empty or "*" ; all user, except attrs that need to be explicitly req.
>>>> "+" ; all operational
>>>> <all including attrs that need to be explicitly requested>
>>>> <...>
>>> Would it be cleaner if slapo-cloak redefines the attributes to be
>>> operational, or to behave as if they are? Maybe give them an
>>> X-AS-OPERATIONAL extension? Or would that just mess up schema code,
>>> things like attribute inheritance?
>> I think things would mess up.
>
> I'd also recommend *not* to turn user attribute types into operational
> attribute types. This would certainly confuse schema-aware clients.
>
>> Moreover, I see a number of features system administrators could ask
>> for; e.g. hide attributes only when matching a URI (base, scope,
>> filter),
>
> Well, that's something many overlays would benefit from.
In fact, based on recent modifications to slapo-constraint(5) and other
overlays, I'm considering the opportunity to introduce generic helpers
to parse and check this type of generic limitations.
>
>> or based on size limit,
I meant: size of the attribute; only return values whose size does not
exceed a gien number of octets, unless explicitly requested.
> ???
>
>> or based on client's identity and so.
>
> That would be similar (not equal) to using ACLs. That was explicitly not
> the case in the original inquiry.
Not exactly. We're discussing the issue of limiting what information
not explicitly requested should be returned. An administrator could
decide, say, that anonymous will not get any jpegPhoto, unless
explicitly requested. This is not ACL (in the stricter sense of what
access privilege an identity is granted), but rather resource access policy.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Fax: +39 0382 476497
Email: ando(a)sys-net.it
-----------------------------------
14 years, 11 months
Re: (ITS#5872) slapo-cloak
by michael＠stroeder.com
ando(a)sys-net.it wrote:
> Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> ando(a)sys-net.it writes:
>>> On a related note, if this can be considered of general usefulness, LDAP
>>> specs would need to be changed in order to define a finer grain of
>>> attribute request; something like:
>>>
>>> empty or "*" ; all user, except attrs that need to be explicitly req.
>>> "+" ; all operational
>>> <all including attrs that need to be explicitly requested>
>>> <...>
>> Would it be cleaner if slapo-cloak redefines the attributes to be
>> operational, or to behave as if they are? Maybe give them an
>> X-AS-OPERATIONAL extension? Or would that just mess up schema code,
>> things like attribute inheritance?
>
> I think things would mess up.
I'd also recommend *not* to turn user attribute types into operational
attribute types. This would certainly confuse schema-aware clients.
> Moreover, I see a number of features system administrators could ask
> for; e.g. hide attributes only when matching a URI (base, scope,
> filter),
Well, that's something many overlays would benefit from.
> or based on size limit,
???
> or based on client's identity and so.
That would be similar (not equal) to using ACLs. That was explicitly not
the case in the original inquiry.
Ciao, Michael.
14 years, 11 months
