[Issue 9378] New: Crash in mdb_put() / mdb_page_dirty()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9378
Issue ID: 9378
Summary: Crash in mdb_put() / mdb_page_dirty()
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.26
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: nate(a)kde.org
Target Milestone: ---
The KDE Baloo file indexer uses lmdb as its database (source code available at
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo). Our most common crash, with over 100
duplicate bug reports, is in lmdb. Here's the bug report tracking it:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389848.
The version of lmdb does not seem to matter much. We have bug reports from Arch
users with lmdb 0.9.26 as well as bug reports from people using many earlier
versions.
Here's an example backtrace, taken from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426195:
#6 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
#7 0x00007f3c0bbb9859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
#8 0x00007f3c0b23ba83 in mdb_assert_fail (env=0x55e2ad710600,
expr_txt=expr_txt@entry=0x7f3c0b23e02f "rc == 0",
func=func@entry=0x7f3c0b23e978 <__func__.7221> "mdb_page_dirty",
line=line@entry=2127, file=0x7f3c0b23e010 "mdb.c") at mdb.c:1542
#9 0x00007f3c0b2306d5 in mdb_page_dirty (mp=<optimized out>,
txn=0x55e2ad7109f0) at mdb.c:2114
#10 mdb_page_dirty (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, mp=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2114
#11 0x00007f3c0b231966 in mdb_page_alloc (num=num@entry=1,
mp=mp@entry=0x7f3c0727aee8, mc=<optimized out>) at mdb.c:2308
#12 0x00007f3c0b231ba3 in mdb_page_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:2495
#13 0x00007f3c0b2337c7 in mdb_cursor_touch (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420) at
mdb.c:6523
#14 0x00007f3c0b2368f9 in mdb_cursor_put (mc=mc@entry=0x7f3c0727b420,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:6657
#15 0x00007f3c0b23976b in mdb_put (txn=0x55e2ad7109f0, dbi=5,
key=key@entry=0x7f3c0727b810, data=data@entry=0x7f3c0727b820,
flags=flags@entry=0) at mdb.c:9022
#16 0x00007f3c0c7124c5 in Baloo::DocumentDB::put
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727b960, docId=<optimized out>,
docId@entry=27041423333263366, list=...) at ./src/engine/documentdb.cpp:79
#17 0x00007f3c0c743da7 in Baloo::WriteTransaction::replaceDocument
(this=0x55e2ad7ea340, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/writetransaction.cpp:232
#18 0x00007f3c0c736b16 in Baloo::Transaction::replaceDocument
(this=this@entry=0x7f3c0727bc10, doc=..., operations=operations@entry=...) at
./src/engine/transaction.cpp:295
#19 0x000055e2ac5d6cbc in Baloo::UnindexedFileIndexer::run
(this=0x55e2ad79ca20) at
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/QtCore/qrefcount.h:60
#20 0x00007f3c0c177f82 in QThreadPoolThread::run (this=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthreadpool.cpp:99
#21 0x00007f3c0c1749d2 in QThreadPrivate::start (arg=0x55e2ad717f20) at
thread/qthread_unix.cpp:361
#22 0x00007f3c0b29d609 in start_thread (arg=<optimized out>) at
pthread_create.c:477
#23 0x00007f3c0bcb6103 in clone () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/clone.S:95
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
6 days, 23 hours
[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.
2 weeks, 6 days
[Issue 9398] New: Stale accesslog cookie due to unclean shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9398
Issue ID: 9398
Summary: Stale accesslog cookie due to unclean shutdown
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
If slapd terminates uncleanly, a checkpoint will be lost on the accesslog db.
Depending on the syncprov overlay checkpoint settings (usually no checkpointing
is enabled on the accesslog db) this can cause the system to refuse engage in
replication at startup.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 weeks, 6 days
[Issue 9393] New: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9393
Issue ID: 9393
Summary: Provider a LDAP filter validation function
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.56
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: best(a)univention.de
Target Milestone: ---
In many situations I need to validate if a user submitted LDAP filter has valid
syntax.
It seems there is no official function to check this.
Could you provide one?
libraries/libldap/filter.c: ldap_pvt_put_filter() can be used as a basis.
--
My current workaround is using a unconnected ldap connection and do a search
with that filter. This yields a FILTER_ERROR (invalid filter) or a SERVER_DOWN
error (invalid filter).
See also:
https://github.com/python-ldap/python-ldap/pull/272
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
2 weeks, 6 days
[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.
2 weeks, 6 days
[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.
2 weeks, 6 days
[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
[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
[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
[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