July 2022 - openldap-bugs

[Issue 9278] New: liblmdb: robust mutexes should not be unmapped

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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.

2 weeks, 1 day

1
15
0 / 0

[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.

2 weeks, 2 days

1
12
0 / 0

[Issue 9736] New: pwrite bug in OSX breaking LMDB promise about the maximum value size

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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/01b1b7dc204abdf3849536979205dc9e3a0e3ec... [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.

2 weeks, 5 days

1
2
0 / 0

[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, 5 days

1
8
0 / 0

[Issue 9436] New: OpenSSL 3.0: libldap uses depreciated functions

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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.

1 month, 2 weeks

1
18
0 / 0

[Issue 9832] New: back-monitor crash when sizelimit in operation

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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.

1 month, 3 weeks

1
5
0 / 0

[Issue 9829] New: set timeouts in remoteauth overlay

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9829 Issue ID: 9829 Summary: set timeouts in remoteauth overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.11 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: david.coutadeur(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Currently, it seems there is no way to configure timeouts in the remoteauth overlay. For example, if I define a remoteauth_mapping with a file containing a list of hostnames, the first one is checked first. After "remoteauth_retry_count" * "connect_timeout" seconds, (210s on my system), remoteauth test the second server in the list. In some circumstances, it could be nice to set the connect timeout lower (or higher). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 month, 3 weeks

1
5
0 / 0

[Issue 9460] New: Drop support for OpenSSL older than 1.1.1

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9460 Issue ID: 9460 Summary: Drop support for OpenSSL older than 1.1.1 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: --- OpenSSL no longer supports the 1.0.2 series and specifically notes it should not be used: "All older versions (including 1.1.0, 1.0.2, 1.0.0 and 0.9.8) are now out of support and should not be used." Currently configure checks for 1.0.2 or higher. OpenSSL 1.1.1 is supported through 11 Sep 2023. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

2 months

1
5
0 / 0

[Issue 9496] New: Some writes missing from database

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

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.

2 months, 3 weeks

1
16
0 / 0

[Issue 9887] New: Offer to mirror OpenLDAP

by openldap-its＠openldap.org

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9887 Issue ID: 9887 Summary: Offer to mirror OpenLDAP Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mirrors(a)jevincanders.net Target Milestone: --- Greetings, We're from Jevin Canders, a hosting company based in New York (servers are in Buffalo). We're wondering if you wanted/needed another US mirror. We're already mirroring other open source projects, including Kali Linux and F-Droid. As of next week (tentatively), our mirror server will have a 20 Gbps pipe to work with, so we'll be able to handle new projects. Let us know if you have any questions, concerns, or requests. Sincerely, Josh Anders and Kevin Croissant JC Mirrors Team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

3 months, 3 weeks

1
8
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs July 2022