openldap-bugs September 2008

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

39 participants
206 discussions

Re: (ITS#5678) slurpd stops processing the replication log if consecutive blank lines are encountered
by mgwin＠escp-eap.net 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:33:47 +0200 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > Which version 2.3? It is definitely more stable than slurpd in recent > versions of 2.3 (2.3.43 is most recent release). 2.3.30, the debian etch package - unfortunately upgrading isn't really an option here. I experienced segfaults on the provider server. Although I'm not entirely sure the provider was initialised properly*, the fact that slapd would crash seemed a sufficient indication we should bide our time and wait till 2.4 hit debian stable. - Michael *The 2.3 admin guide states: The provider slapd (8) is not required to be restarted. contextCSN is automatically generated as needed: it might be originally contained in the LDIF file, generated by slapadd (8), generated upon changes in the context, or generated when the first LDAP Sync search arrives at the provider. If an LDIF file is being loaded which did not previously contain the contextCSN, the -w option should be used with slapadd (8) to cause it to be generated. This will allow the server to startup a little quicker the first time it runs. This doesn't seem very clear to me - should I re-import the database with the -w option, or should adding the overlay and syncprov-* directives to slapd.conf and restarting be sufficient?

1 0

(ITS#5709) slapd sync provider skips some objects
by sylvain.thomas＠gmail.com 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

Full_Name: Sylvain Thomas Version: 2.4.11 OS: Linux 2.6 (Fedora) URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (145.242.11.3) I have a test platform with one master and one simple replica. I perform rapid write operations on the master through 8 parallel connections, and I find that some objects are missing in the replica. More investigation shows that the sync provider skips the objects if they are processed faster than the preceding ones. Below, I produce a sample log (sync + stats) of the problem. In the sample log the object uid=5030708029E1 is not sent to the replica (no call to syncprov_sendresp() ) but the object uid=50307080309A is sent. ..... Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: conn=331 op=1 ADD dn="uid=50307080309A,ou=A,ou=9,ou=abonnes,ou=test,c=fr" Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: slap_queue_csn: queing 0xa2f6cac0 20080923080903.375249Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: conn=333 op=1 ADD dn="uid=5030708029E1,ou=1,ou=E,ou=abonnes,ou=test,c=fr" Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: slap_queue_csn: queing 0xa14feac0 20080923080903.376369Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: conn=332 op=1 RESULT tag=105 err=0 text= Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0x9179420 20080923080903.373805Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: syncprov_sendresp: cookie=rid=003,csn=20080923080903.373805Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: conn=333 op=1 RESULT tag=105 err=0 text= Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0x917b428 20080923080903.376369Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: conn=331 op=1 RESULT tag=105 err=0 text= Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0xa242aa38 20080923080903.375249Z#000000#001#000000 Sep 23 10:09:03 ldap_mirror1 slapd[2020]: syncprov_sendresp: cookie=rid=003,csn=20080923080903.375249Z#000000#001#000000 ...... I think the reason is that the ADD request for uid=5030708029E1 is received after that of uid=50307080309A, so it takes a bigger csn (20080923080903.376369Z#000000#001#000000) but its processing takes less time (slap_graduate_commit_csn() comes first). I can provide a detailed log (loglevel -1) and any other information required. The environment and the configuration files are the same as for ITS 5661, but I do not use the mirror mode. Thanks for your help Best Regards Sylvain Thomas

1 0

Re: (ITS#5678) slurpd stops processing the replication log if consecutive blank lines are encountered
by michael＠stroeder.com 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

Michael Gwin wrote: > On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:21:36 +0200 > Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > >> That's pretty much the reason why syncrepl was invented/implemented in >> OpenLDAP 2.2 and slurpd is deprecated and abandoned from 2.4. >> >> http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html >> >> Likely everybody here will simply recommend to migrate to syncrepl. > > Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with the design and goals of > syncrepl, and will indeed migrate in the future. However, having tried > it, it didn't seem production-worthy in openldap 2.3. Which version 2.3? It is definitely more stable than slurpd in recent versions of 2.3 (2.3.43 is most recent release). Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5678) slurpd stops processing the replication log if consecutive blank lines are encountered
by mgwin＠escp-eap.net 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:21:36 +0200 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > That's pretty much the reason why syncrepl was invented/implemented in > OpenLDAP 2.2 and slurpd is deprecated and abandoned from 2.4. > > http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html > > Likely everybody here will simply recommend to migrate to syncrepl. Thanks for the suggestion. I agree with the design and goals of syncrepl, and will indeed migrate in the future. However, having tried it, it didn't seem production-worthy in openldap 2.3. Just in case it can help anyone, I solved my problem by removing the attribute filtering from my replica. No blank lines since. Regards, Michael

1 0

(ITS#5708) nss-ldap not responding properly
by harpreet＠deeproot.co.in 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

Full_Name: Harpreet Singh Wadhwa Version: 2.4.11 OS: Debian URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (61.95.198.26) Hi to all, I don't know if this has been posted earlier as I was not able to find it in the list. The issue is I have openldap working with PAM and NSS to do the authentication stuff for courier services. But at times users are unable to log into their accounts, restarting NSCD and SLAPD solves the problem but that too for a short time. These are some details and errors which I have. ##libnss-ldap.conf host 127.0.0.1 base dc=com ldap_version 3 binddn uid=example,dc=com bindpw secret bind_policy soft ##nsswitch.conf passwd: compat ldap group: compat ldap shadow: compat ldap hosts: files dns networks: files protocols: db files services: db files ethers: db files rpc: db files netgroup: nis And the errors which I get are --> user.info: Sep 18 11:24:35 nscd: nss_ldap: reconnecting to LDAP server... user.err: Sep 18 11:24:35 nscd: nss_ldap: could not connect to any LDAP server as uid=example,dc=com - Can't contact LDAP server And some time I get --> local4.debug: Sep 23 11:21:40 slapd[8880]: conn=224 fd=20 closed (connection lost) or local4.debug: Sep 23 11:15:21 slapd[8880]: connection_read(20): no connection! Please respond to me. Regards.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5707) HEAD/RE24 and BDB 4.7.25p1 hanging
by hyc＠symas.com 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > I was unable to reproduce the problem on my multi-core machines, but I do see > it on a single-core machine. I've sent a backtrace and other debug info to the > Oracle folks, will see what they have to say. I see the problem; it's a bug in BDB's multi-partition lock manager. When using multiple lock table partitions, it obtains a lock on the system-wide lock mutex and a lock on the per-region mutex. On a single core system it defaults to a single lock table. In this case, the macro that obtains the system-wide lock behaves identically to the per-region lock. I.e., both attempt to acquire the exact same mutex. Since it's already held, the process deadlocks. (gdb) bt #0 0xb7f37424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7b36c4e in __lll_mutex_lock_wait () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 #2 0xb7b32a3c in _L_mutex_lock_88 () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 #3 0xb7b3242d in pthread_mutex_lock () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 #4 0xb7d00819 in __db_pthread_mutex_lock (env=0x8a84550, mutex=104) at ../dist/../mutex/mut_pthread.c:207 #5 0xb7daad19 in __lock_getobj (lt=0x8a84848, obj=0xbfd492ec, ndx=492, create=1, retp=0xbfd491e4) at ../dist/../lock/lock.c:1470 #6 0xb7da7f53 in __lock_get_internal (lt=0x8a84848, sh_locker=0xb776d508, flags=1, obj=0xbfd492ec, lock_mode=DB_LOCK_READ, timeout=0, lock=0xbfd493cc) at ../dist/../lock/lock.c:588 #7 0xb7da77d6 in __lock_get_api (env=0x8a84550, locker=2147483659, flags=1, obj=0xbfd492ec, lock_mode=DB_LOCK_READ, lock=0xbfd493cc) at ../dist/../lock/lock.c:423 #8 0xb7da765b in __lock_get_pp (dbenv=0x8a841c0, locker=2147483659, flags=1, obj=0xbfd492ec, lock_mode=DB_LOCK_READ, lock=0xbfd493cc) at ../dist/../lock/lock.c:395 #9 0x08124fb8 in bdb_dn2id_lock (bdb=0x8a68620, dn=0xbfd493f0, rw=0, txn=0x8a890b8, lock=0xbfd493cc) at ../../../../head/servers/slapd/back-bdb/dn2id.c:47 #10 0x08125d7d in bdb_dn2id (op=0xbfd49640, dn=0xbfd493f0, ei=0xbfd493e0, txn=0x8a890b8, lock=0xbfd493cc) at ../../../../head/servers/slapd/back-bdb/dn2id.c:307 ---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---q Quit (gdb) frame 4 #4 0xb7d00819 in __db_pthread_mutex_lock (env=0x8a84550, mutex=104) at ../dist/../mutex/mut_pthread.c:207 207 RET_SET((pthread_mutex_lock(&mutexp->mutex)), ret); (gdb) p *mutexp $1 = {mutex = {__data = {__lock = 2, __count = 0, __owner = 29470, __kind = 0, __nusers = 1, {__spins = 0, __list = {__next = 0x0}}}, __size = "\002\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\036s\000\000\000\000\000\000\001\000\000\000\000\000\000", __align = 2}, cond = {__data = {__lock = 0, __futex = 0, __total_seq = 0, __wakeup_seq = 0, __woken_seq = 0, __mutex = 0x0, __nwaiters = 0, __broadcast_seq = 0}, __size = '\0' <repeats 47 times>, __align = 0}, pid = 29470, tid = 3080046272, mutex_next_link = 0, alloc_id = 6, mutex_set_wait = 1, mutex_set_nowait = 129, flags = 3} (gdb) The mutex being acquired in frame 4 is the same one that was already acquired in frame 7, __lock_get_api line 418. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5707) HEAD/RE24 and BDB 4.7.25p1 hanging
by hyc＠symas.com 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > Full_Name: Michael Ströder > Version: HEAD/RE24 > OS: Linux > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.97.30) > > > I'm trying to run current RE24 and HEAD with BDB 4.7.25p1. It hangs in test-001 > and it hangs in a LDAP conn (probably when doing a bind). Is that combination > really > stable? > > It works with very same build scripts/configuration with 4.6.21+patches. > > Further information (bt full, log, BDB build script) is in this archived mailing > list posting: > > http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200809/msg00075.html I was unable to reproduce the problem on my multi-core machines, but I do see it on a single-core machine. I've sent a backtrace and other debug info to the Oracle folks, will see what they have to say. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

(ITS#5707) HEAD/RE24 and BDB 4.7.25p1 hanging
by michael＠stroeder.com 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

Full_Name: Michael Ströder Version: HEAD/RE24 OS: Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.97.30) I'm trying to run current RE24 and HEAD with BDB 4.7.25p1. It hangs in test-001 and it hangs in a LDAP conn (probably when doing a bind). Is that combination really stable? It works with very same build scripts/configuration with 4.6.21+patches. Further information (bt full, log, BDB build script) is in this archived mailing list posting: http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/200809/msg00075.html

1 0

Re: (ITS#5656) Bind operations with translucent overlay
by ando＠sys-net.it 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

Gavin Henry wrote: > Again, thanks. Sets have been documentated for quite some time now: > > http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/access-control.html#Sets%20-%20Granting… Right; they're not documented in the slapd.access(5) man page, yet. 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 -----------------------------------

1 0

Re: (ITS#5656) Bind operations with translucent overlay
by ghenry＠OpenLDAP.org 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

----- ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > > > Too tired today :-( For some reason I was talking about > slapo-unique, as I'm > > writing that up just now. > > Just to avoid (or increase :) confusion when you'll be back from > relax, > I don't recall working at slapo-unique recently. AFAIK, the old and > the > new config statements live together in perfect harmony, although > unique_uri is preferable as it is more expressive. OK, thanks. > I have added a restrict=<uri> parameter to slapo-constraint, which > allows to optionally restrict the entries the constraint would apply > to. > I have also allowed the <attr> to actually be an attribute list, in > case > one needs to apply the same constraint to more than one. Finally, the > > "set" type is now available. It uses the ACL sets' syntax, which, > AFAIK, is still undocumented. Again, thanks. Sets have been documentated for quite some time now: http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/access-control.html#Sets%20-%20Granting… -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. OpenLDAP Engineering Team. E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org Community developed LDAP software. http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
21
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2008