February 2012 - openldap-bugs

Re: (ITS#7144) reproducible segfault on slave/consumer during sync-replication

by sven＠svenhartge.de

Um 01:00 Uhr am 01.02.12 schrieb Howard Chu: > Sven Hartge wrote: >> On 02/01/12 05:56, Howard Chu wrote: >>> sven(a)svenhartge.de wrote: >> > > I get a very good backtrace, but since this backtrace contains internal >> > > information I am a bit hesitant to attach this backtrace to a public >> > > bug-report. >> > >> > The backtrace you sent shows the crash at a line of code which was >> > already patched in RE24 due to ITS#7132. I believe this bug is already >> > fixed. >> >> This is good news. Do you have any commit ID so I can try to backport >> this fix to the version currently in Debian Squeeze? > > commit 42faa8393e6cd41a837b526777110b892541773a This simple patch applies flawless on 2.4.23 but still segfaults. Will try on top of 2.4.28 tomorrow, backtraces will follow then, after I verified my findings. (Reason for trying this on top of 2.4.23 is because this is the version in Debian Squeeze and I want to provide the DDs with a fix for Squeeze. I fully understand that is not supported by OpenLDAP.) Grüße, Sven.

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

(ITS#7145) cn=Connection 0,cn=Connections,cn=Monitor received twice

by michael＠stroeder.com

Full_Name: Version: RE24 22ee28752e3e0d2a6910a22922fc69befd78578a OS: RHEL 6.2 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (84.163.34.231) When querying cn=Monitor there are two entries returned with the same DN cn=Connection 0,cn=Connections,cn=Monitor This is a MMR setup with two nodes.

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: (ITS#7130) OpenLDAP with BackSQL and Postgres. Upper on bigint?

by dermaniac＠gmail.com

I'm sorry, I send my issue to the wrong mailinglist at first (to the bugs list) and then tried to send it to technical twice. It doesnt seem to go through. Do you have any idea which column it is that defines this behaviour? I can't seem to find it..

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: (ITS#7144) reproducible segfault on slave/consumer during sync-replication

by hyc＠symas.com

Sven Hartge wrote: > On 02/01/12 05:56, Howard Chu wrote: >> sven(a)svenhartge.de wrote: > >>> I get a very good backtrace, but since this backtrace contains internal >>> information I am a bit hesitant to attach this backtrace to a public >>> bug-report. >> >> The backtrace you sent shows the crash at a line of code which was >> already patched in RE24 due to ITS#7132. I believe this bug is already >> fixed. > > This is good news. Do you have any commit ID so I can try to backport > this fix to the version currently in Debian Squeeze? commit 42faa8393e6cd41a837b526777110b892541773a -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: (ITS#7144) reproducible segfault on slave/consumer during sync-replication

by sven＠svenhartge.de

On 02/01/12 05:56, Howard Chu wrote: > sven(a)svenhartge.de wrote: >> I get a very good backtrace, but since this backtrace contains internal >> information I am a bit hesitant to attach this backtrace to a public >> bug-report. > > The backtrace you sent shows the crash at a line of code which was > already patched in RE24 due to ITS#7132. I believe this bug is already > fixed. This is good news. Do you have any commit ID so I can try to backport this fix to the version currently in Debian Squeeze? Grüße, Sven.

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: (ITS#7144) reproducible segfault on slave/consumer during sync-replication

by hyc＠symas.com

sven(a)svenhartge.de wrote: > Full_Name: Sven Hartge > Version: 2.4.28 > OS: Debian Squeeze > URL: > Submission from: (NULL) (2a01:198:329:1::14) > > > I experience an easy to reproduce and consistent segfault when I setup a slapd > > syncrepl consumer on Squeeze. > > > > This segfault always happens during the replication of the same object, but the > > slapd version in Lenny has no problems with same DIT. > I get a very good backtrace, but since this backtrace contains internal > > information I am a bit hesitant to attach this backtrace to a public bug-report. The backtrace you sent shows the crash at a line of code which was already patched in RE24 due to ITS#7132. I believe this bug is already fixed. > Is there a way to privatly submit this data (backtrace and additional schemas) > > so you can have look at the problem? -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

11 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs February 2012