https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7790
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |ryan(a)openldap.org
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8102
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|replication |
Resolution|TEST |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
RE24:
• 178ca23e
by Howard Chu at 2020-09-09T16:39:15+00:00
ITS#8102 serialize plain syncrepl
Using cs_pmutex. Reverts the addition of cs_modmutex in ITS#9330,
use cs_pmutex for both delta and plain writes.
Note that plain syncrepl already used cs_pmutex when a cookie CSN
was present in the op. Now it is used for all writes, regardless
of presence of cookie.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9323
Issue ID: 9323
Summary: For 2.5, only support OpenSSL 1.0 or later
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Need to abort configure at the least if the OpenSSL release is less than the
1.0.x series when compiling against OpenSSL
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9043
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8102
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Commits:
• e02b1d94
by Howard Chu at 2020-09-09T15:35:59+00:00
ITS#8102 serialize plain syncrepl
Using cs_pmutex. Reverts the addition of cs_modmutex in ITS#9330,
use cs_pmutex for both delta and plain writes.
Note that plain syncrepl already used cs_pmutex when a cookie CSN
was present in the op. Now it is used for all writes, regardless
of presence of cookie.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8102
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |2.4.54
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8768
--- Comment #7 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
There is another element to this issue, the consumer that is receiving these
deletes might also be a provider with active persist sessions. It needs to be
able to pass the right information onwards so that its own consumers do not
risk diverging either. I better add some kind of regression test to make sure
this is handled, it might already be fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8102
--- Comment #5 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to tpretz(a)gmail.com from comment #3)
> When a cookie is not sent with an entry the cs_pmutex is not acquired.
> Without having some protection, non-cookie modifications will race
> each other between syncrepl threads.
>
> So, i am testing surrounding the syncrepl_entry "if" block (line 1036)
> with a cs_pmutex lock/release (when punlock < 0) to serialize
> non_cookie mods just like the cookie ones.
> So far this is running tests and i haven't seen the null_callback
> issue, either when catching up from the session log, or running with
> ongoing out of order writes being replicated (running alongside
> unmodified 2.4.44 to compare differences).
>
> When acquiring the cs_pmutex i have used the same logic as at line 958
> (using trylock, with a shutdown check). I wonder if it is safe to
> acquire the mutex with a standard ldap_pvt_thread_mutex_lock at this
> point without spinning.
Sounds like you've done things correctly. It's not safe to do a normal
mutex_lock here because the wait time could be quite long, and interfere
with other the pool pause or shutdown operations.
We'll be adding the same code now.
>
> line numbers from RELENG_2_4 (721a038b7bc9732f52eeef5324c180c4f137cd75)
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7330
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.