openldap-bugs March 2008

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

34 participants
162 discussions

(ITS#5442) slapd_rq not locked before use bugfix
by rein＠basefarm.no 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Full_Name: Rein Tollevik Version: CVS head OS: linux and solaris URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/slapd_rq_lock.patch Submission from: (NULL) (81.93.160.250) I was seeing random failures of the test050-syncrepl-multimaster test. One of the failures was that it went into a tight loop traversing a circular runqueue it had managed to create in slapd_rq.task_list. It seems as this was caused by missing mutex locks around accesses to slapd_rq, which the patch uploaded to ftp://ftp.openldap.… [View More]

1 0

(ITS#5441) Avoid unneccessary time() syscall in auditlog overlay
by rein＠basefarm.no 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Full_Name: Rein Tollevik Version: CVS head OS: linux and solaris URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (81.93.160.250) Below is a minor enhancement to the auditlog overlay, don't fetch the time() until it is known that it is needed. Which it isn't on all those search responses that passes through it.. Rein Tollevik Basefarm AS Index: OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/auditlog.c diff -u OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/auditlog.c:1.1.1.8 OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/… [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#5439) syncprov race condition seg. fault
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

rein(a)basefarm.no writes: > It now looks to me as if the entire rs->sr_entry was released an > reused, (...) Could this be ITS#5340? -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5340) REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE bug in dynlist
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: [about REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE] > it is not > clear what happens when a callback chain is interrupted by > slap_null_cb() or similar, without getting to slap_send_search_entry(). > This seems to indicate that callbacks should always provide a last > resort means to release the resources they set; if read-only, by keeping > track of what they sent; if modifiable, by freeing the contents of > rs->sr_* if not NULL, setting it to NULL to prevent … [View More]further cleanup. That sounds cumbersome, I hope slapd could take care of that somehow. But I don't see how the be_release() code can work now. It sounds like be->be_release() functions must check (how?) that the entry was created by 'be', and otherwise pass it on to the next overlay/backend or otherwise to entry_free(). Might involve mucking with op->o_bd and sr_entry->e_private, I suppose. Except maybe I'm missing some existing magic since slapd doesn't regularly crash... be->be_release() does receive entries that were not created by 'be' or at least not with be->be_fetch(), see openldap-devel thread 'slapd API' in mar 2008. > Similarly, the existence of REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED is not totally clear: > in principle as soon as REP_ENTRY_MODIFYABLE is set, it should imply > REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED; the only difference in the semantics of the two > is that REP_ENTRY_MODIFYABLE without REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED implies that > the callback that set the former will take care of freeing the entry; > however, other callbacks may further modify it, so freeing temporary > data should probably be left to the final handler. That's not my impression. MODIFIABLE would be that other modules than the creator can modify the entry - but the creator might still be the one who will free it. MUSTBEFREED is that the entry must be entry_free()ed - the creator will not do it (or not do it unless that flag is set). So, if I'm getting this right... A backend must expect an entry to change or be freed if it sends the entry with REP_ENTRY_<MUSTRELEASE, MUSTBEFREED or MODIFIABLE>, or if it passes through a slap_callback.sc_response. back-ldif does not: it uses e_name/e_nname _after_ sending with with REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE. Nor overlay retcode, it calls retcode_entry_response(,,,rs->sr_entry) which makes pointers into sr_entry without checking if those flags are set. If I'm getting that code correctly. I haven't tested. Others apparent problems (also not tested, I've just browsed the code): Overlays that obey and reset MUSTBEFREED or MUSTRELEASE, do not necessarily clear or set MODIFIABLE when setting a new entry. translucent does not, even though it is a careful one which obeys both MUSTBEFREED and MUSTRELEASE. I'm not sure when the code must clear the entry_related flags. Some code which sets new entries seem to assume they are zero, but some code which sets sr_entry=NULL does not clear the flags. There are sr_flags bits which are not about the entry, in particular REP_MATCHED_MUSTBEFREED and REP_MATCHED_MUSTBEFREED. Looks like these flags can get lost when but some code sets sr_flags = <something> rather sr_flags |= <something> or sr_flags ~= ~<something>. -- Hallvard [View Less]

1 0

Re: ITS#5391 [Fwd: [Berkeley DB Announce] Berkeley DB 4.6.21.1 - Patch Announcement]
by quanah＠zimbra.com 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

--On Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:44 PM +0000 bdb(a)oss.oracle.com wrote: > I know you're not using BDB 4.6 with OpenLDAP 2.3, so this patch isn't > strictly relevant to this ITS. It just raises the possibility that there > is a BDB bug involved. Looking at the code for 4.2.52, the mp_fopen.c code is essentially identical to what this patch fixes, so I'd guess it could affect 2.3 releases using bdb 4.2->4.5. And I'm guessing there'll be no patch from Oracle for those much … [View More]

1 0

ITS#5391 [Fwd: [Berkeley DB Announce] Berkeley DB 4.6.21.1 - Patch Announcement]
by bdb＠oss.oracle.com 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

I know you're not using BDB 4.6 with OpenLDAP 2.3, so this patch isn't strictly relevant to this ITS. It just raises the possibility that there is a BDB bug involved. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Berkeley DB Announce] Berkeley DB 4.6.21.1 - Patch Announcement Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:03:40 -0400 From: bdb(a)oss.oracle.com Reply-To: bdb(a)oss.oracle.com Organization: Oracle Corporation To: <bdb(a)oss.oracle.com> A patch for Berkeley DB release 4.6.21 that fixes a race … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#5440) back-meta opens too many connections in case of error
by ando＠sys-net.it 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

ali.pouya(a)free.fr wrote: > Full_Name: Ali Pouya > Version: 2.4.8 > OS: Linux 2.6 > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (145.242.11.3) > > > Hi, > I'm testing the back-meta of OpenLdap 2.4.8 in order to upgrade to this > release. > My client opens a persistent LDAP connection to slapd, binds with an ordinary > account (from the local back-bdb) and begins search operations. > > I notice that if a search operation results … [View More]

1 0

(ITS#5440) back-meta opens too many connections in case of error
by ali.pouya＠free.fr 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

Full_Name: Ali Pouya Version: 2.4.8 OS: Linux 2.6 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (145.242.11.3) Hi, I'm testing the back-meta of OpenLdap 2.4.8 in order to upgrade to this release. My client opens a persistent LDAP connection to slapd, binds with an ordinary account (from the local back-bdb) and begins search operations. I notice that if a search operation results in an LDAP error (for example error 32 : No Such Object), then back-meta opens a new connection to … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#5439) back-bdb race condition
by hyc＠symas.com 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

Rein Tollevik wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > It now looks to me as if the entire rs->sr_entry was released an reused, > and that the bug probably is in back-bdb. It just always happened when > syncprov was running as this is a master server with mostly writes > except from the reads syncprov does. Which also means that the title on > the bug report is probably misleading :-( > > The reason for my shift of focus is some highly suspicious … [View More]variables > found in the bdb_search() frame. Look at the value of idflag in bdb_search. (see the comment around 672) Could be a locking bug with ID_NOCACHE in cache.c... > First, ei->bei_e seem to be NULL every time this happen, not the same as > the "e" variable as I would except from looking at the code. Second, > e->e_id is either 0 or ei->bei_id+1, the content of *e is the (more or > less completely initialized) entry following the *ei entry in the > database, while I would expect that ei->bei_id==e->e_id and that > ei->bei_e==e. I don't think the consecutive ID numbers or entries has > anything with the bug to do though, they are probably a result of the > searches reading the entire database. > > I looks to me as if the EntryInfo referred to by ei was released somehow > when slap_send_search_entry() was running, and that the ei->bei_e passed > as rs->rs_entry was first released and then reused for the next entry. > Alternatively that the structures wasn't properly initialized and > thereby appeared free to the second thread. > > I have found a core file that adds to my suspicions, this time with two > active threads. Their stack frames are shown at the end. In this core > file the id variable in the bdb_search() frame is 9318, the second > thread is loading id==9319. The value of the "e" variable in > bdb_search() for the first thread equals the "x" variable of the > entry_decode() frame in the second thread. Since entry_decode() has > just allocated its "x" value it shouldn't have found the same value as > the other thread has unless someone released its "e" entry while it was > still using it. Why this happened I haven't figured out yet. > > The cachsesize directive has its default value, which is way below the > optimal value. The result is that the cache is always full. I don't > know if that can have any influence on the bug? I tried to lower its > value to see if that should help reproducing the problem, but not so > far. > >>> I'm currently trying to gather more information related to this bug, any >>> pointers as to what I should look for is appreciated. I'm posting this bug >>> report now in the hope that the stack frame should enlighten someone with better >>> knowledge of the code than what I have. >> Check for stack overruns, compile without optimization and make sure it's not >> a compiler optimization bug, etc. > > I'll try to run it with a version compiled with only -g and see if the > same thing should happen then. > -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ [View Less]

1 0

Re: (ITS#5439) syncprov race condition seg. fault
by rein＠basefarm.no 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > rein(a)basefarm.no wrote: >> We have bin hit by what looks like a race condition bug in syncprov. We got >> some core dumps all showing stack frames like the one at the end. As such nasty >> bugs tends to do it have behaved OK after I restarted slapd with more debug >> output :-( (trace + stats + stats2 + sync). >> >> >> Note the a=0xBAD argument to attr_find(), which I expect is the result of some &… [View More]gt;> other thread freeing the attribute list it was called with while it was >> processing it. The rs->sr_entry->e_attrs argument passed to attr_find() as the >> original "a" argument by findpres_cb() looks like a perfectly valid structure, >> as are all the attributes found by following the a_next pointer. The list is >> terminated by an attribute with a NULL a_next value, none of the a_next values >> are 0xBAD. > > I don't believe that's the cause. Notice that arg0 in stack frame #9 is also > 0xbad, even though it is shown correctly in frames 8 and 10. Something else is > going on. I don't know how I managed to overlook the strange 0xbad argument in frame #9, and I really haven't any explanation as to why it shows that value. But if I am on the right track in my assumptions below I currently writes is off as an unexpected result of optimization. It now looks to me as if the entire rs->sr_entry was released an reused, and that the bug probably is in back-bdb. It just always happened when syncprov was running as this is a master server with mostly writes except from the reads syncprov does. Which also means that the title on the bug report is probably misleading :-( The reason for my shift of focus is some highly suspicious variables found in the bdb_search() frame. First, ei->bei_e seem to be NULL every time this happen, not the same as the "e" variable as I would except from looking at the code. Second, e->e_id is either 0 or ei->bei_id+1, the content of *e is the (more or less completely initialized) entry following the *ei entry in the database, while I would expect that ei->bei_id==e->e_id and that ei->bei_e==e. I don't think the consecutive ID numbers or entries has anything with the bug to do though, they are probably a result of the searches reading the entire database. I looks to me as if the EntryInfo referred to by ei was released somehow when slap_send_search_entry() was running, and that the ei->bei_e passed as rs->rs_entry was first released and then reused for the next entry. Alternatively that the structures wasn't properly initialized and thereby appeared free to the second thread. I have found a core file that adds to my suspicions, this time with two active threads. Their stack frames are shown at the end. In this core file the id variable in the bdb_search() frame is 9318, the second thread is loading id==9319. The value of the "e" variable in bdb_search() for the first thread equals the "x" variable of the entry_decode() frame in the second thread. Since entry_decode() has just allocated its "x" value it shouldn't have found the same value as the other thread has unless someone released its "e" entry while it was still using it. Why this happened I haven't figured out yet. The cachsesize directive has its default value, which is way below the optimal value. The result is that the cache is always full. I don't know if that can have any influence on the bug? I tried to lower its value to see if that should help reproducing the problem, but not so far. >> I'm currently trying to gather more information related to this bug, any >> pointers as to what I should look for is appreciated. I'm posting this bug >> report now in the hope that the stack frame should enlighten someone with better >> knowledge of the code than what I have. > > Check for stack overruns, compile without optimization and make sure it's not > a compiler optimization bug, etc. I'll try to run it with a version compiled with only -g and see if the same thing should happen then. Rein Acive thread when segmentation fault occured: #0 0x0807d03a in attr_find (a=0xbad, desc=0x81e8680) at attr.c:665 #1 0xb7a656f6 in findpres_cb (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at syncprov.c:546 #2 0x0808416d in slap_response_play (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at result.c:307 #3 0x0808555b in slap_send_search_entry (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at result.c:770 #4 0x080f2cdc in bdb_search (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at search.c:870 #5 0x080db72b in overlay_op_walk (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68, which=op_search, oi=0x8274218, on=0x8274318) at backover.c:653 #6 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #7 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at backover.c:727 #8 0x080d9570 in glue_sub_search (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68, b0=0xac05cba4, on=0xac05cba4) at backglue.c:340 #9 0x080da131 in glue_op_search (op=0xbad, rs=0xac05cb68) at backglue.c:459 #10 0x080db6d5 in overlay_op_walk (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68, which=op_search, oi=0x8271860, on=0x8271a60) at backover.c:643 #11 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #12 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0xac05cba4, rs=0xac05cb68) at backover.c:727 #13 0xb7a65ff4 in syncprov_findcsn (op=0x85085b8, mode=FIND_PRESENT) at syncprov.c:700 #14 0xb7a670a0 in syncprov_op_search (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0) at syncprov.c:2277 #15 0x080db6d5 in overlay_op_walk (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0, which=op_search, oi=0x8271860, on=0x8271b60) at backover.c:643 #16 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #17 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0) at backover.c:727 #18 0x08076554 in fe_op_search (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0) at search.c:368 #19 0x080770e4 in do_search (op=0x85085b8, rs=0xac05e1c0) at search.c:217 #20 0x08073e28 in connection_operation (ctx=0xac05e2b8, arg_v=0x85085b8) at connection.c:1084 #21 0x08074f14 in connection_read_thread (ctx=0xac05e2b8, argv=0x3d) at connection.c:1211 #22 0xb7fb5546 in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x81ee240) at tpool.c:663 #23 0xb7c80371 in start_thread () from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 #24 0xb7c17ffe in clone () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 Thead loading the next entry: #0 0x08123ef6 in avl_find (root=0x81e7940, data=0xae7a62e8, fcmp=0x80b8871 <attr_index_name_cmp>) at avl.c:541 #1 0x080b7852 in at_bvfind (name=0xae7a62e8) at at.c:130 #2 0x080b5fd8 in slap_bv2ad (bv=0xae7a6354, ad=0xae7a6360, text=0xae7a6364) at ad.c:189 #3 0x0807eef5 in entry_decode (eh=0xae7a63bc, e=0xae7a64a8) at entry.c:859 #4 0x0810d849 in bdb_id2entry (be=0xae8666c0, tid=0x0, locker=0xb742da7c, id=9319, e=0xae7a64a8) at id2entry.c:169 #5 0x08104ffb in bdb_cache_find_id (op=0xae866ba4, tid=0x0, id=9319, eip=0xae7a6614, flag=2, locker=0xb742da7c, lock=0xae7a65f4) at cache.c:834 #6 0x080f2682 in bdb_search (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68) at search.c:684 #7 0x080db72b in overlay_op_walk (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68, which=op_search, oi=0x8274218, on=0x8274318) at backover.c:653 #8 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #9 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68) at backover.c:727 #10 0x080d9570 in glue_sub_search (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68, b0=0x81e7930, on=0xae866ba4) at backglue.c:340 #11 0x080da131 in glue_op_search (op=0xfffffffa, rs=0xae866b68) at backglue.c:459 #12 0x080db6d5 in overlay_op_walk (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68, which=op_search, oi=0x8271860, on=0x8271a60) at backover.c:643 #13 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #14 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0xae866ba4, rs=0xae866b68) at backover.c:727 #15 0xb7a65ff4 in syncprov_findcsn (op=0x8508e60, mode=FIND_PRESENT) at syncprov.c:700 #16 0xb7a670a0 in syncprov_op_search (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0) at syncprov.c:2277 #17 0x080db6d5 in overlay_op_walk (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0, which=op_search, oi=0x8271860, on=0x8271b60) at backover.c:643 #18 0x080dbcaf in over_op_func (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0, which=op_search) at backover.c:705 #19 0x080dbdef in over_op_search (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0) at backover.c:727 #20 0x08076554 in fe_op_search (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0) at search.c:368 #21 0x080770e4 in do_search (op=0x8508e60, rs=0xae8681c0) at search.c:217 #22 0x08073e28 in connection_operation (ctx=0xae8682b8, arg_v=0x8508e60) at connection.c:1084 #23 0x08074f14 in connection_read_thread (ctx=0xae8682b8, argv=0x54) at connection.c:1211 #24 0xb7fb5546 in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x81ee240) at tpool.c:663 #25 0xb7c80371 in start_thread () from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 #26 0xb7c17ffe in clone () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 [View Less]

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2008