openldap-bugs December 2022

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
120 discussions

[Bug 9221] New: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

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.

1 6

[Bug 9218] New: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

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.

1 8

[Bug 9217] New: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

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.

1 12

[Bug 9216] New: Port autoca to gnutls
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Nov '23

07 Nov '23

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.

1 8

[Issue 9959] New: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Oct '23

25 Oct '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959 Issue ID: 9959 Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're at it, might also expose the current bound identity there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 9278] New: liblmdb: robust mutexes should not be unmapped
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 23 Oct '23

23 Oct '23

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.

1 20

[Issue 9714] New: Use xorshift in libldap/dnssrv.c
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 23 Oct '23

23 Oct '23

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.

1 2

[Issue 9936] New: slapd attempting free on address which was not malloced
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 20 Oct '23

20 Oct '23

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.

1 7

[Issue 9888] New: When using cn=config replication, schema updates can corrupt the index database(s)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 19 Oct '23

19 Oct '23

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.

1 19

[Issue 9863] New: lastbind configuration fails to honor chaining configuration
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Oct '23

09 Oct '23

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.

1 12

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
12
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs December 2022