openldap-bugs November 2011

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

22 participants
92 discussions

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by hyc＠symas.com 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Michael Ströder wrote: > Howard Chu wrote: >> One crucial step in isolating the problem would be to determine if the error >> actually occurs during slapadd or slapcat. > > I revise my statement that data looks ok via LDAP. Messing up the data seems > to happen during slapadd if the LDIF is not in tree order (as already > suspected in a former posting which was not read I guess). > > Try to slapadd data1.ldif and data2.ldif in the tar.gz attached. data2.ldif is > in tree order while in data1.ldif subordinate entries come before their > superior entries (which is what slapcat sometimes produce). > > These entries > > dn: ou=Groups,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local > objectClass: organizationalUnit > ou: Groups > > dn: cn=slapd-1,ou=Systemkonten,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local > cn: slapd-1 > objectClass: applicationProcess > objectClass: simpleSecurityObject > userPassword: pw_slapd1 > > get mixed into that: > > dn: ou=Groups,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local > cn: slapd-1 > hasSubordinates: TRUE > objectClass: applicationProcess > objectClass: simpleSecurityObject > userPassword: pw_slapd1 > >> Bug-hunting takes systematic, methodical testing. You can't just go changing >> revisions willy-nilly. > > You don't have to teach me anything in the testing field. Clearly I *do* need to, based on the completely useless content-free emails you've posted so far. > Again: Your arrogant attitude does not help at all. It solely frustrates > people who are trying to help even if they don't have much spare time left. The only person copping an attitude here is you. I'm simply asking you for information that would help point to the problem; you're choosing to ignore my questions until I make a point of re-asking. Thank you for the test data. -- -- 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#7096) Make depend error on redhat 6 with OpenLDAP 2.3.43
by llx88217＠126.com 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Full_Name: llx Version: OpenLDAP 2.3.43 OS: redhat 6.1 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (59.37.47.42) configuration is successfully, and run "make depend" this error prompt: In file included from slurp.h:53, from ri.c:45: ../../include/ldap_pvt_thread.h:64:7: error: missing binary operator before token "("

1 0

(ITS#7095) Make depend error on redhat 6 with OpenLDAP 2.3.43
by llx88217＠126.com 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by michael＠stroeder.com 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000109050706000504040005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Howard Chu wrote: > One crucial step in isolating the problem would be to determine if the error > actually occurs during slapadd or slapcat. I revise my statement that data looks ok via LDAP. Messing up the data seems to happen during slapadd if the LDIF is not in tree order (as already suspected in a former posting which was not read I guess). Try to slapadd data1.ldif and data2.ldif in the tar.gz attached. data2.ldif is in tree order while in data1.ldif subordinate entries come before their superior entries (which is what slapcat sometimes produce). These entries dn: ou=Groups,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local objectClass: organizationalUnit ou: Groups dn: cn=slapd-1,ou=Systemkonten,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local cn: slapd-1 objectClass: applicationProcess objectClass: simpleSecurityObject userPassword: pw_slapd1 get mixed into that: dn: ou=Groups,ou=schulung,dc=stroeder,dc=local cn: slapd-1 hasSubordinates: TRUE objectClass: applicationProcess objectClass: simpleSecurityObject userPassword: pw_slapd1 > Bug-hunting takes systematic, methodical testing. You can't just go changing > revisions willy-nilly. You don't have to teach me anything in the testing field. Again: Your arrogant attitude does not help at all. It solely frustrates people who are trying to help even if they don't have much spare time left. Get real. How many people do you think are really testing such a wide range of OpenLDAP functionality like me? How many people you expect to thoroughly test back-mdb within the next six months even if released in 2.4.27? How many people do you expect to really dive into such problems? Most people will just use another backend or another LDAP server. Ciao, Michael. --------------000109050706000504040005 Content-Type: application/x-gzip; name="openldap-testbed-its7090.tar.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="openldap-testbed-its7090.tar.gz" H4sICIz/zU4CA29wZW5sZGFwLXRlc3RiZWQtaXRzNzA5MC50YXIA7RxrU9tIkq/Wr5gzuSvI MrY0elPl2mKBJOwR4DDZy2ZzlRppRrYuep1GWiCP/349ku2YsAQwNsrdaqggeaTpnn53D+2k GU8iRjNccFF4nOGwELbqqv215Q0Vhq2q9dUyqqtm1NfJWNM0y9J12zYsaw0e2pa+hsy1Rxil KGiO0Foc+mPKo2+8x3Ox9n830pvkH4siTznjeS9iYfBg+VsTef+R/IlBpPwJMUybaATkb1ua tYbUVv4rHyzZRmXIBjNxb6Xl4JWkVd4If1xGZTLaYv5g9gLcR6lPIwXWbaPZQiX1/s39Yjei QmyjMOHFcT46AUBpoviA5WXNYDScvi9gcvZBsvcEVp6nOQCVyii4n/NCUdba0YT9M1pQ7eG2 P7P/m/0/sWxz6v8twzLB/i2L2K39P5b932roVyw7zUc0CT/QIkwTGr1KwkJJy200haAoE5An aRT6Ib+DH7kL+Cm0GXgR0SzFWSbnL7eWj2/ii75CXLnKWlPu7SjrZVexU99Py6S4OinCOIv4 kPtlHhaXx9WjbzjICUPuuJe7EF+BqgH7ScVphjUJengpCh6/T5OCJ7ejkl5/svgrqrMMmFph PclTnwtxbwZk5+8q0NpX2yQP2SZZ2TbJTEz329tdpDUPcYbmeZ6W2ZLUoYY1Y/QOi8OkAn1X JJLDM4Oql19FPJKAjoMjGoOhxTz2eL6orU13ecor4d1rn1PMD1H6azAW1Mjp/r/BKGWV8V+G xQJXJPTEeKX1n6XP6j+T2FX+b5pqG/8fY6z/pe+FSV+MFeX4ZP/ocG/n5N3J6f6zg9eDbj/N iv5MQU73idFVDo93dw53j4+eHTyHF8ZpzPsTzvVBwbP+TfrUVZR1hDBDfpoE4WgLuF6I+jfZ on60RfOR2Cpy6vMtcZn46K2iPPn41ZY+96PQ4xfc71d6Ce/cDPILuIz673kh6rfHqCu3t93v q73qZ5uotobkXAiTfyXPJE1wmVAFd5IuuNxEGTyqDV2kEk+3xpNMQsrkpXqynCYB9ccAPfk4 x8/PNVU9SY7SeP4/9VA4hDAQ0gjXxUDPo++XW/9rmq2Rmf2bNvgJQqAqaO3/fzP/h+WlX5Q5 jY5vWcaTIr989epgbxuZRFcN6jmYebaDDdOzMA14gE3NtlQ94KpvcwXSXVqkuZDRr04PWJhT Ft8hoMqV/CyEqFnQONtGBNRO04ihOqplkjf1VnaHR18/6RFTMx33zXqtq+uTfzCUOAVzCPki 26mWXn5jOyuuoRYSkaebKg1Uim3CPGxAkMYUSnfsceJ5nmk5hq82IiJd6ojTlIgevQ6tjG0e 6WLiNAgllHEHU1uj2LADB7uqE2DH1AmxWeBrtCFxOoatG02Jc+lV9ELCcbjlOk7gYdvQVGxQ 1cOOTQkOgkCngW4xkFQjwjEsoqlqI8L5To5ethF7/ssH9uIo+lX/OWI7g8FNIp4imJOrTTSu ux44TebbYHSahz3iWNgnhLuO5hsBNRqRq6m7rqU2ZXQrPhNZyAQDyj1mUw3rKtOxASkp9igh WFUNnRHuUdWhjYjK0mxbJY2IajmHgWSVB4OwyRcQvMjF2H/+j4sbTfM6njnRWx61mWuCbbqu jw3XIphybmPuqnZgOwELVK8Z0ZtQNmnNiv77OmC9Iu7LxcRNuW/brqphn/sWNixmYk+HYGsS zTRVz4Dao5lga6uW65KmnPIKTpAXcsS2Y1IbYiPmasBkaUixo9kq5EK+5ZrAIth7M+JxDNdw mrLG5ZzCy7kVH8jfIPQrGObEzXSDM0cHayQW1CXc0bEbOCYONIuCIri2x5uJu6B0rmo1Je4/ wZ8z7qkokJ1ZDg84NhymQZRmPkRpSNW4ZgVWoAdcs7VGFMXVbEd9/AJ2Bf0f5PH7P6rzX9n/ Ybbnv23/x3fX/7GyPovvuLHkMToW2jaTJbeZtP0fbf/Hw+K/t7SvANyn/9+0Zf+/qZuk7f9v 9u//s16EVed/lqrP8j/TUHWZ/9l62//zOP0/yjoaco6+iHvD3ERBmiPGCxpGAqXJpMEGKjMZ GFCayYvowcqzcShQEEawfpyWEUNHx2fI4wgcPXyACopRL+Lwpuz+GfpjHkNVgWgpAHqOjkH3 ZHcP3gvBB4ZeKeEqYeJHJeOdzvX2oz4v/NmM7FABeH0/zXmvvl9grQiThVfL7zhAyMyq7zhM gQChezyAR2gUpR6N0M7uoUBFilgoJDOA8oCWUVFxR6ZpEO97ipKFTPIRcN+9p6qfl8nETmG5 IlueKhiLgZDLFVlnlhHPaDH+Iy5M26+ms0Dtgwcw7DAFVrDLhMKekSfbtRKG6p2I7WWgqGFF gKYjwb+LmdeL6JJ2X/eiTaSd0RxicyHz+iUAV9ajdBTx33kkbTCpbA1go6rJTSnGUocEshRB RYQhbc/yNBNI5lciGKjKejUPL0UxGp6dHu/v7Z/2do9fLonwU34OGSlHw53hIQoZTwrIT6Wq 7x2czT4vhw1o//XZ/unRziFKfwf6ITW9QHtpTMME1W13Ci2L8QegdcQvMgWh7ihkSSlTscHG byp2//XD5tu3P5TXJrcgT8s4z6HiYfKeXwB/IfmV9xJkV8KadAz2b0vcfvxRlN6PG3/bmMvZ Bhn4mIuduhzb3IAdHNU7eEI2N0ZfPmmbm1WP5E4UoZj7YwGGIDiT7leGnoM9MAhRoEKeAKHz sBiDqtUZ9TXSZeK88RvFH3bwmy9UbrBwBMaPY2Z+8kFJq5ukiOJPWQR8/ASaBr9HQtAs3HwI +RI9kNNdkpY9rw2r9pTSDABttCStOk3TAu0N96EIi6L0HNHkMgXPDSpceWeofyZopf9OelIi g24XeZfoafWGjGqlV3t+tAHUb1angvcGCdyewZkHvwQyp2zco1B6eDR5j4ISLEhWEInIaRnf fvyzrE0o8kxREtwB/6soogyC8KLT6d62ga7CwhzsKc0v7xXbAEkOAmYJ4LjHWWu3WpWddzof h8MXO58LUsZj8tIL7KNfDn/65/hnd4+/eJ2fx7+eFHo+FAqYeQERptOB7AU4fZAwfoH/Pp8z QWoBc2jOLXQ6/D/AgvADj8I4LDpYW5qwr8r9Jw6sGxewlWTEExTGTYj+ihZ80X9aFLkYzB9l gLtBUv+rOreyi3ufNnTR4PziOpwFzgO6tRFOQAkeBfOgn6LBhXLVmMEBFDkHe75dxZZBZxV9 V0DpU3QELktpv3r7Z/7+rywMGjj/qf//B9O07Pb8px3taEc72tGOdrSjHe1oRzuWOf4LOFpf UgBQAAA= --------------000109050706000504040005--

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by michael＠stroeder.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

Howard Chu wrote: > This would imply that the error is isolated to slapcat. Since you claim the > problem did not occur in an earlier revision, Well, that's not sure anymore since I could simply not have observed it before because the slapcat'ed LDIF was always in tree order. Not sure. As said. The difference in data1 (messes up) and data2 (works) is that data2 is in tree-order. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by hyc＠symas.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > I've re-tested with git RE24 65a49595f563573f91da936ea27f5eaf6b21a48d with > *nearly* the same data (data2) and the bug does not seem to happen again. Hmm... You still haven't answered this first question: > If you revert the code to an older commit, does it produce the same result? Since you haven't provided steps to reproduce the error, all we can do is rely on you to triage the problem. One crucial step in isolating the problem would be to determine if the error actually occurs during slapadd or slapcat. If you knew that the problem did not occur in a previous revision, then by slapadd'ing the LDIF with that known good revision, and then slapcat'ing with both the known revision and the later revision, would reveal whether the error is actually stored in the database, or whether it's a bug in how slapcat reads out the database. > Also LDAP access to the entries mixed in slapcat output is completely ok. This would imply that the error is isolated to slapcat. Since you claim the problem did not occur in an earlier revision, it might be easy to run thru the commit logs and find the cause of the problem. But without your confirmation of these guesses, we still have nothing to go on. Since we have nothing to go on, and therefore could take no steps to address this issue, it should come as no surprise to you that testing an even later revision than the one you originally reported against still shows the bug occurring. Bug-hunting takes systematic, methodical testing. You can't just go changing revisions willy-nilly. -- -- 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#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by quanah＠zimbra.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

--On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:16 PM +0100 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> --On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:34 PM +0100 Michael Ströder >> <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: >> >>> No way. >> >> Then it is unlikely this will get fixed until you can provide a dummy >> data set that triggers the issue. > > As said I'll try to provide test data. But what strikes me is that your > statement sounds like I'm the only one who's interested in getting this > fixed. I never said nor implied any such thing. I simply pointed out that until you can provide test data that reproduces the problem, it is unlikely this bug will be fixed. Not for lack of willingness for it to be fixed, but because *you* are the only person seeing it, and *you* are the only person with a data set that causes the issue. Thus it is up to *you* to provide such data to the project, or describe it in such a way that someone in the project can reproduce it. Again, this is why I keep an NDA with Symas. It allows me to provide them data necessary for such reproductions. I've managed to hit all sorts of odd ball edge cases over the years that no one else could produce. What I didn't do is expect the project to be able to figure out with a bare minimum of detail what was going wrong. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by michael＠stroeder.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:34 PM +0100 Michael Ströder > <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > >> No way. > > Then it is unlikely this will get fixed until you can provide a dummy data set > that triggers the issue. As said I'll try to provide test data. But what strikes me is that your statement sounds like I'm the only one who's interested in getting this fixed. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by quanah＠zimbra.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

--On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:34 PM +0100 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > No way. Then it is unlikely this will get fixed until you can provide a dummy data set that triggers the issue. Personally this is why I keep an NDA with Symas. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#7090) back-mdb produces wrong slapcat output
by michael＠stroeder.com 23 Nov '11

23 Nov '11

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:48 PM +0100 Michael Ströder > <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > >>> Can you provide these two data sets? >> >> As said in my first posting: This is private address book data. So nope. > > Can you provide it outside of the ITS system in a private manner to Howard? No way. Ciao, Michael.

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs November 2011