https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9640
Issue ID: 9640
Summary: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm using LDAP write operations with MOD_INCREMENT with pre-read-control for
uidNumber/gidNumber generation.
I'd like to limit write access to an Integer attribute "nextID" to
MOD_INCREMENT, ideally even restricting the de-/increment value.
(Uniqueness is achieved with slapo-unique anyway but still I'd like to avoid
users messing with this attribute).
IMHO the ideal solution would be a new privilege "i".
Example for limiting write access to increment by one and grant read access for
using read control:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=1
by group=... =ri
Example for decrementing by two without read:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=-2
by group=... =i
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909
Issue ID: 9909
Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is
never released on shutdown.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9388
Issue ID: 9388
Summary: mdb_stat for DupSort DBI shows incorrect data
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.26
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: AskAlexSharov(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
It doesn't include pages pages used for values.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9223
Bug ID: 9223
Summary: Add support for incremental backup
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For LMDB 1.0, add support for incremental backups
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9619
Issue ID: 9619
Summary: mdb_env_copy2 with MDB_CP_COMPACT in mdb.master3
produces corrupt mdb file
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.29
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
When copying an LMDB database with mdb_env_copy2 with the MDB_CP_COMPACT with
mdb.master3, the resulting mdb file seems to be corrupt and when using it in
LMDB, I get segmentation faults. Copying without the compacting flag seems to
work fine. I apologize, I know this is not a very good issue report, as I
haven't had a chance to actually narrow this down to a more
reproducible/isolated case, or look for how to patch. I thought I would report
in case there are any ideas on what could cause this. The segmentation faults
always seem to be memory write faults (as opposed to try fault on trying to
read). Or perhaps the current backup/copying functionality is eventually going
to be replaced by incremental backup/copying anyway
(https://twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1315651814096875520). I'll try to update
this if I get a chance to investigate more, but otherwise feel free to
ignore/consider low-priority since the work around is easy.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9496
Issue ID: 9496
Summary: Some writes missing from database
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: igfoo(a)github.com
Target Milestone: ---
With the attached test program, some of my database writes appear not to
actually be written to the database. For example, a run may look like this:
$ ./run.sh
All done.
All finished
1802 test.txt
foo_200 is missing
bar_200 is missing
foo_404 is missing
bar_404 is missing
foo_407 is missing
bar_407 is missing
The script that I am using to run the program is below. This is using
mdb.master 52bc29ee2efccf09c650598635cd42a50b6ecffe on Linux, with an ext4
filesystem.
Is this an LMDB bug, or is there a bug in my code?
Thanks
Ian
#!/bin/sh
set -e
if ! [ -d lmdb ]
then
rm -rf lmdb
git clone https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb.git
INSTALL_DIR="`pwd`/inst"
cd lmdb/libraries/liblmdb
make install prefix="$INSTALL_DIR"
cd ../../..
fi
gcc -Wall -Werror -Iinst/include loop.c inst/lib/liblmdb.a -o loop -pthread
rm -f test.db test.db-lock
./loop
echo "All finished"
mdb_dump -np test.db > test.txt
wc -l test.txt
for i in `seq 100 999`
do
if ! grep -q "foo_$i" test.txt
then
echo "foo_$i is missing"
fi
if ! grep -q "bar_$i" test.txt
then
echo "bar_$i is missing"
fi
done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9224
Bug ID: 9224
Summary: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
In LMDB, add support for PREPARE/2-phase commits
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9769
Issue ID: 9769
Summary: Patch new feature batch get
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: rouzier(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 859
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=859&action=edit
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
mdb_cursor_get_batch retrieves a page worth of key/values.
This is to reduce the number of function calls when doing a scan of the
database.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9291
Issue ID: 9291
Summary: Detection of corrupted database files
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: markus(a)objectbox.io
Target Milestone: ---
Let's assume we have to deal with a corrupted database for whatever reason
(e.g. broken hardware or file system). Current behavior seems to be mostly
undefined, which is understandable as it's not known what is broken (e.g. there
are no checksums).
For example, I'm seeing a SIGBUS in mdb_page_touch because the cursor's top
page (mp) is pointing to invalid memory (0x7f99cf004000) during a commit:
mdb_page_touch mdb.c:2772
mdb_page_search mdb.c:6595
mdb_freelist_save mdb.c:3575
mdb_txn_commit mdb.c:4060
Cursor data at that point: mc_snum = 1, mc_top = 0; myki[0] = 0
A SIGBUS is troublesome as it crashes the process, and I wonder if there are
other ways to detect such inconsistencies. If that be possible there could be
user-specific handling in place. E.g. a user might start a new database file.
This issue was reported by our users, which also provided DB files:
https://github.com/objectbox/objectbox-java/issues/859
I did not find a lot of consistency checks besides MDB_PAGE_NOTFOUND and
MDB_CORRUPTED. Also, I think there's no current way to thoroughly check a DB
file (e.g. like fsck for the DB file)?
My first idea other than checksums was to walk through the branch pages from
the root and check if the referenced pages are within reasonable bounds. Also
check the page content (e.g. nodes, flags). Additionally (optionally?), it
should be possible to check that the key values are actually sorted.
So, it boils down to 3 points in summary:
1.) If there no way to check the DB file for consistency yet(?), which approach
do you think would make sense? There might be two modes; one for a through
check through all data, and a quick check that does not take long and could be
e.g. done when opening the DB. Goal is to avoid process crashes and let users
handle the situation.
2.) In general, is it possible to add more consistency checks in regular DB
operations?
3.) Could the the particular situation (for which I provided the stack trace)
detected (e.g. is myki[0] = 0 legal here?)
I'd be happy to provide a patch if you provide some direction where you want to
take that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.