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=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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9471
Issue ID: 9471
Summary: Add RBAC overlay to core
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: ---
Symas will contribute its RBAC overlay to core
The slapo-rbac overlay is an implementation of the ANSI INCITS 359 Role-Based
Access Control (RBAC) Core.
When instantiated, it intercepts, decodes and enforces specific RBAC policies
per the Apache Fortress RBAC data formats.
The overlay provides a set of extended operations.
They include session create/delete, checkAccess, addActiveRole, dropActiveRole
and sessionRoles.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9472
Issue ID: 9472
Summary: Add datamorph overlay to core
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: ---
Symas will contribute its datamorph overlay to core
The datamorph overlay to slapd allows attributes with a few predefined values
to be saved more space-efficiently as well as signed or unsigned integer
attributes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9473
Issue ID: 9473
Summary: Add variant overlay to core
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: ---
Symas will contribute its variant overlay to OpenLDAP core
The variant overlay to slapd allows attributes/values to be shared between
several entries. In some ways this is similar to slapo-collect with the
exception that the source and target attributes can be different.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9736
Issue ID: 9736
Summary: pwrite bug in OSX breaking LMDB promise about the
maximum value size
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Mac OS
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: renault.cle(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
I was working with LMDB and found an issue when trying to write a value of
approximately 3.3GiB in the database, I dive into the LMDB source code of the
mdb_put method using the lldb debugger and found out that it was not related to
an issue in LMDB itself but rather a bug in the pwrite function of the Mac OS
libc implementation.
The pwrite function is given four parameters, the file descriptor, the buffer,
the count of bytes to write from the buffer and, the offset of where to write
it in the file. On Mac OS the count of bytes is a size_t that must be a 64bits
unsigned integer but when you call pwrite with a number bigger or equal to 2^31
it returns an error 22 (invalid argument). LMDB was returning a 22 error from
the mdb_put call and not an EINVAL because the error was cause by an internal
issue and not something catchable by LMDB.
I am not sure about what we can do, can we implement this single pwrite [1] as
multiple pwrite with counts smaller than 2^31 in a loop, just for Mac OS? Like
for Windows where we do specific things for this operating system too?
I also found this issue on the RocksDB repository [2] about a similar problem
they have with pwrite and write on Mac OS it seems. I understand that this is
not a real promise that LMDB is specifying but rather an "in theory" rule [3].
Thank you for your time,
kero
[1]:
https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/01b1b7dc204abdf3849536979205dc9e3a0e3ece/…
[2]: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/5169
[3]: http://www.lmdb.tech/doc/group__mdb.html#structMDB__val
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9436
Issue ID: 9436
Summary: OpenSSL 3.0: libldap uses depreciated functions
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: ---
OpenLDAP master fails to build against OpenSSL 3.0 alpha when "no-deprecated"
is specified.
Currently hitting these errors:
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `SSL_get_peer_certificate'
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `PEM_read_bio_DHparams'
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ERR_get_error_line'
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `DH_free'
./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh'
Notes:
SSL_get_peer_certificate is SSL_get1_peer_certificate in 3.0.0
SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh should be replaced as follows:
# define SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh(ctx,dh) \
SSL_CTX_ctrl(ctx,SSL_CTRL_SET_TMP_DH,0,(char *)(dh))
Have to dig deeper for:
PEM_read_bio_DHparams
ERR_get_error_line
DH_free
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9832
Issue ID: 9832
Summary: back-monitor crash when sizelimit in operation
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: backends
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
If a back-monitor search gets a failure in send_search_entry(), e.g. due to
sizelimit being reached, a pending server pause, etc., it will try to call
monitor_cache_release( mi, e ) where e == NULL instead of the correct entry to
release.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.