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.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9217
Bug ID: 9217
Summary: Audit all schema definitions to have official
non-experimental OIDs where possible
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 requirements:
[09:27] <hyc> we also need to audit all of these schema defs
[09:27] <hyc> we're supposed to have official, non-experimental OIDs for
released schema
[09:28] <hyc> accesslog is still using 666, experimental arc
[09:29] <hyc> I think this means we should polish up the logschema draft,
Informational status, and publish it again as final
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9216
Bug ID: 9216
Summary: Port autoca to gnutls
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For 2.5, support building and running the autoca overlay with GnuTLS.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9278
Issue ID: 9278
Summary: liblmdb: robust mutexes should not be unmapped
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: FreeBSD
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: delphij(a)freebsd.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 736
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=736&action=edit
A possible workaround
We recently noticed that lmdb would have the memory region containing the
robust mutex unmapped on mdb_env_close0():
munmap((void *)env->me_txns,
(env->me_maxreaders-1)*sizeof(MDB_reader)+sizeof(MDB_txninfo));
Note that if this is the last unmap for a robust mutex, the FreeBSD
implementation would garbage-collect the mutex, making it no longer visible to
other processes. As the result, a second instance of the attached test.c (from
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244493 with minor changes)
would trigger the assertion at mdb_txn_begin() because the acquisition of the
mutex would return 22 (EINVAL), because the mutex appeared to be a robust
mutex, but was invalid.
The attached lmdb.diff is a possible workaround for this (it would skip
unmapping when setting up the robust mutex for the first time).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9714
Issue ID: 9714
Summary: Use xorshift in libldap/dnssrv.c
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
As discussed in https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/417
we may want to shift to using xorshift in libldap/dnssrv.c in a future release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9936
Issue ID: 9936
Summary: slapd attempting free on address which was not
malloced
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kimjuhi96(a)snu.ac.kr
Target Milestone: ---
I get invalid free running this on the latest openldap from git, built with
CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" using clang 15.
Seems this is similar to https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9912.
./servers/slapd/slapd -T c -s1 -s1
Stopped reason: SIGABRT
__GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
50 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory.
gdb-peda$ bt
#0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50
#1 0x00007ffff78ca859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
#2 0x00005555556eb04f in __sanitizer::Abort ()
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cpp:143
#3 0x00005555556e8aac in __sanitizer::Die ()
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cpp:58
#4 0x00005555556c5dda in __asan::ScopedInErrorReport::~ScopedInErrorReport
(this=0x7fffffffbe7e, __in_chrg=<optimized out>)
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:192
#5 0x00005555556c72b8 in __asan::ReportFreeNotMalloced (addr=<optimized out>,
free_stack=0x7fffffffca90)
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:199
#6 0x00005555556c02ab in __interceptor_free (ptr=0x7fffffffe359)
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:53
#7 0x0000555555d3efe2 in ber_memfree_x ()
#8 0x0000555555847d33 in ch_free ()
#9 0x0000555555a31178 in slap_tool_init ()
#10 0x0000555555a2e54d in slapcat ()
#11 0x000055555570901f in main ()
#12 0x00007ffff78cc083 in __libc_start_main (main=0x555555706ef0 <main>,
argc=0x5, argv=0x7fffffffdfc8,
init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>,
stack_end=0x7fffffffdfb8)
at ../csu/libc-start.c:308
#13 0x000055555561011e in _start ()
at
/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:397
gdb-peda$
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9888
Issue ID: 9888
Summary: When using cn=config replication, schema updates can
corrupt the index database(s)
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Today I pushed a schema update out to the config node that holds schema that is
replicated to the providers and consumers. Post schema update, 2/11 servers
crashed in the mdb online indexing function. I fixed this by slapcat the db
and slapadd the db. This is important because it was later revealed that on
the 9/11 servers that did not crash or have their database reloaded, ldapsearch
would return the wrong attribute names for some attribute:value pairs in the
database, which caused mayhem in downstream systems and caused replication
issues between the nodes. The 2 nodes that were reloaded immediately after the
schema change had the only "good" copies of the database left.
To give an example, say an entry was something like:
dn: uid=joe,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
uid: joe
sn: smith
cn: joe smith
givenName: joe
After the change, the broken servers could return something like:
dn: uid=joe,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
uid: joe
posixGroup: smith
cn: joe smith
givenName joe
It's not clear how deeply this bug ran in the database. It for sure affected 2
attributes used by the person objectClass. Both of the "replacement"
attributes were not valid attributes for the person objectClasses in use.
Maybe related to the changes in ITS#9858?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9863
Issue ID: 9863
Summary: lastbind configuration fails to honor chaining
configuration
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
In an environment where consumers are configured to chain writes up to the
providers, lastbind configuration fails to honor this which is generally what
one would expect. This causes mismatches between the providers and consumers
in regards to the database state. Additionally it introduces random serverIDs
into the database.
In my case, the providers have serverIDs 10, 20, 30 configured but the consumer
is generating serverID 1 for the entryCSN.
Expectation: consumer does not generate *any* entryCSN value and instead
forwards the write op to the provider.
Log from consumer:
slap_get_csn: conn=1069 op=0 generated new
csn=20220610180137.644625Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9735
Issue ID: 9735
Summary: [PATCH] try hard to find free space if database cannot
grow
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.24
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: libor.peltan(a)nic.cz
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 851
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=851&action=edit
Patch fixing the issue "try hard to find free space if database cannot grow"
Note:
- the issue is the same in version 0.9.70 (git)
Situation:
- the database had already grown to its limit (mapsize) in the past
- overflow pages are used heavily as stored values are usually several pages
long
- free space got fragmented
Problem:
- attempt to insert new value results in MDB_MAP_FULL despite there is free
space available
Cause: there is a heursitic in mdb_page_alloc() that gives up searching for
free space chunk if this would take too much time. This is useful when the
database can still grow, as it balances performance with space usage. However,
if the database can no longer grow, it prevents inserting new values.
Solution: detect early on in mdb_page_alloc() if the database can grow, and if
not, let it try hard to search for free space.
Patch: attached
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.