September 2020 - openldap-bugs

[Issue 9341] New: Delta-sync MPR needs to be stable regardless of ordering

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9341 Issue ID: 9341 Summary: Delta-sync MPR needs to be stable regardless of ordering Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: replication Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- If two or more updates are spread across several providers before they have a chance to learn about the others, all replicas need to arrive at the same content regardless of the order in which they arrive. One example that is broken at the moment: - (csn a) server 1 accepts a modify - (csn b) server 2 accepts a delete on the same DN - (csn c) server 2 accepts an add on that DN again If a replica receives the actions in the order bca vs. abc, the content of the entry will be different even though the final CSN set is the same -> they will never converge. The ordering 'bac' also needs to result in eventual convergence, even if it means a refresh or replication from either provider stalling temporarily? Merge request with this test case (so far): https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 weeks

1
11
0 / 0

[Issue 9305] New: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9305 Issue ID: 9305 Summary: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.46 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: minfrin(a)sharp.fm Target Milestone: --- When the ldap_connect_to_host() function sees a failure from getaddrinfo(), the meaningless return code -1 is returned. This makes troubleshooting difficult on a webserver, where the low level printf debugging is not practical. (gdb) step ldap_connect_to_host (ld=ld@entry=0x7fffc4002e10, sb=0x7fffc400b240, proto=1, srv=srv@entry=0x7fffc400b2f0, async=async@entry=0) at os-ip.c:543 543 { (gdb) next 546 ber_socket_t s = AC_SOCKET_INVALID; (gdb) 562 if ( srv->lud_host == NULL || *srv->lud_host == 0 ) { (gdb) 568 port = srv->lud_port; (gdb) 570 if( !port ) { (gdb) 578 switch(proto) { (gdb) 580 osip_debug( ld, (gdb) warning: Source file is more recent than executable. 71 return __builtin___memset_chk (__dest, __ch, __len, __bos0 (__dest)); (gdb) 598 hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; (gdb) 601 hints.ai_socktype = socktype; (gdb) 602 snprintf(serv, sizeof serv, "%d", port ); (gdb) 605 LDAP_MUTEX_LOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 607 err = getaddrinfo( host, serv, &hints, &res ); (gdb) 609 LDAP_MUTEX_UNLOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 611 if ( err != 0 ) { (gdb) 612 osip_debug(ld, "ldap_connect_to_host: getaddrinfo failed: %s\n", (gdb) print host $3 = <optimized out> (gdb) print serv $4 = "636\000\000\000" (gdb) next 614 return -1; (gdb) The ldap_connect_to_host() function needs to return proper error codes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 weeks

1
4
0 / 0

[Issue 9303] New: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303 Issue ID: 9303 Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 weeks

1
4
0 / 0

[Issue 9272] New: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9272 Issue ID: 9272 Summary: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.47 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Here is a trivial test case. Look at the following bunch of glued dit's/databases, declared in this order: | suffix ou=a,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=2,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=b,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=T # master database, has two entries, top-level | ` ou=1 # ... and this child entry let's query the united database: | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=b,ou=1,ou=T Nice! But wait, what if ... | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub -E\!pr=2/noprompt '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | | # pagedresults: cookie=//////////8= ... BANG! ... | Server is unwilling to perform (53) The problem is the glue_op_search(), which has issues * different parts of code make different assumptions about data structures * different parts of code track state inconsistently * code that looks like a highly probably dead code I mean that likely possible to build another bug-triggering test cases, and glue_op_search() needs not just a fix of the bug above, but intense cleaning and structuring. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 weeks

1
13
0 / 0

[Issue 9269] New: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9269 Issue ID: 9269 Summary: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- "hidden" configuration option is ignored by slapd (not honored by "glue" overlay?) if the database it tries to hide is also a "subordinate" database. Checked for openldap 2.4.47 and current git master (f3952d9). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 weeks

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9244 Bug ID: 9244 Summary: API calls blocking after async connect Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 721 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=721&action=edit async connect test without TLS My understanding of LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is that the attached program should not block. If the connection does not establish fast enough, the bind call is supposed to return LDAP_X_CONNECTING. (At least that's how I understand it, based on the original behaviour (circa 2.4.23 up to 2.4.40) as well as the bind loop in back-meta. On the other hand, the man page does "Subsequent calls to library routines will poll for completion of the connect before performing further operations" which might be interpreted as meaning they would block...) In current releases it does block, as demonstrated by strace on Linux (latency added using 'tc qdisc'): [...] connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(389), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.204")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) poll([{fd=3, events=POLLOUT|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLOUT}]) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = 14 poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLIN}]) read(3, "0\f\2\1\1a\7\n", 8) = 8 read(3, "\1\0\4\0\4\0", 6) = 6 write(2, "OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 "..., 42OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 (Success) ) = 42 [...] As discussed in IRC, I believe I bisected this down to commit ae6347bac, from bug 8022. The reasoning is sound, but ldap_int_open_connection does not actually return -2, only -1 or 0. The patch is simple enough, but I'm also looking at some later commits that were probably done to work around this, and might not be needed now (bug 8957, bug 8968, bug 8980). Also need to test all setups thoroughly (ldap, ldaps, STARTTLS, not to mention back-meta/asyncmeta). I also notice that LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is not effective unless LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT is also set. It might be intentional, but the man page doesn't mention this specifically, and I don't see why it would be necessary... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

3 weeks

1
13
0 / 0

[Bug 9229] New: Make liblutil usable by libldap

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9229 Bug ID: 9229 Summary: Make liblutil usable by libldap Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- liblutil is a static library (non-PIC) and so cannot be linked into shared objects, however we have several use cases for reusing its code in libldap. Some options: - moving more code from liblutil to libldap - just merge the whole thing? - are there components that link liblutil but _not_ libldap? - build liblutil as PIC (take a minor performance hit when linked into programs?) - build liblutil twice (liblutil.a and liblutil_pic.a) - symlink liblutil sources into libldap build dir, like libldap_r does with libldap - both of these last options require checking whether executables can call the PIC symbols safely (if some symbols are used by both library and program code) Nice-to-have for 2.5, I'd say more likely for 2.6 at this point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

3 weeks

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 9225] New: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9225 Bug ID: 9225 Summary: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.50 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit in back-mdb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

3 weeks

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 9221] New: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9221 Bug ID: 9221 Summary: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- (In relation to a discussion about slapo-chain) <hyc> anyway, the nicer ting to fix would be in 2.5, push all of the repl consumer code into its own overlay <hyc> in that case, updateref would be processed wherever the overlay was configured <hyc> so no longer tied to the frontend <hyc> it would also make it more feasible to have multiple different consumer configs in a single DB, each with their own provider URL (and thus their own updateref) <hyc> I would think we can get rid of the update ref directive entirely, just point all writes to that consumer's provider. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

3 weeks

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 9218] New: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9218 Bug ID: 9218 Summary: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 items: [13:57] <hyc> there's a nagging problem though, pcache's entry_release function needs to distinguish between its backend actually freeing the entry, or being a no-op [13:57] <hyc> so it can decide whether to return success or continue [13:58] <hyc> the patch to translucent sidesteps the question, by avoiding other overlays [13:58] <hyc> but we need to revisit this in 2.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

3 weeks

1
8
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2020