https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9897
Issue ID: 9897
Summary: ldapcompare return FALSE when dynlist in use
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: sdalu(a)sdalu.com
Target Milestone: ---
The server configuration enable dynlist with:
overlay dynlist
dynlist-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL member
Entry is:
dn: cn=Admins,ou=Services,ou=Members,dc=zog,dc=com
member: uid=foo,ou=People,dc=zog,dc=com
cn: Admins
objectClass: groupOfNames
The ldap compare will return false, was expected true
ldapcompare -x cn=Admins,ou=Services,ou=Members,dc=zog,dc=com
member:uid=foo,ou=People,dc=zog,dc=com
Now if I comment the dynlist-attrset directive, I will get TRUE for the same
ldapcompare request
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9984
Issue ID: 9984
Summary: Balancer listener thread exits when all listeners are
suspended
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.13
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: ---
If lloadd runs out of file descriptors, the listeners are paused temporarily,
however the event base is not configured to stick around if all of its tasks
have finished.
In case all of the listeners are paused, the event base exits and listener
thread goes away. A patch is coming.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9983
Issue ID: 9983
Summary: operation_unlink files the operation before it is
fully unlinked
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.13
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: ---
In epoch based memory management, objects should only be submitted for
reclaiming when no actors can reach them unless they've done that before the
submission happened.
This is broken in operation_unlink():
It calls try_release_ref() at the beginning where the operation is added to the
to-reclaim list, only then it proceeds to unlink it from other objects.
The following sequence is then possible:
- current_epoch == 1 (no threads are alive in epoch == 0)
- in thread 1 (epoch = 1), try_release_ref() marks the object to be reclaimed
in current_epoch
- thread 2 activates and current_epoch is incremented (current_epoch == 2)
- thread 2 handles an Unbind for the operation's client and reaches
client_reset() (epoch == 2)
- thread 2 (client_reset) snapshots and clears client->c_ops (among other
things, c->c_ops links to our object)
- thread 1 finishes operation_unlink, deactivates and there are no more threads
in epoch == 1
- thread 3 activates and current_epoch is incremented (current_epoch == 3),
there are objects in epoch == 1, namely the object above which is now destroyed
(freed)
- thread 2 wakes up again and tries to call operation_abandon on the above
object, this accesses memory freed
epoch_append (and try_release_ref) should only be called when unlinking has
finished. I'm testing a patch right now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9947
Issue ID: 9947
Summary: Race in epoch.c
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: ---
When epoch_leave() tests whether other threads might still be alive, it can
test things in reverse order, testing too early to catch a thread to come in
and too late to see a thread that just left. If those two saw each other, the
clock would not advance and the data in refs might actually still be a
reachable pointer.
The tests in epoch_leave can actually be simplified leading to machine code not
all compilers could figure out by themselves.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9925
Issue ID: 9925
Summary: Fix some compilation issues around usage of #if and
#ifdef
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: connor.smith(a)hitachivantara.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 918
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=918&action=edit
git format-patch
I noticed a few issues while working with OpenLDAP that would lead to compiler
warnings and the like in our particular build environment. They're quite minor,
but it would still be good to have them patched upstream.
In include/ac/socket.h:
Use #elif defined(...) for HAVE_WINSOCK and MACOS. All other instances
of these macros use #ifdef or similar. A compiler may warn about them
not being defined.
In libraries/liblber/sockbuf.c, (DOS && PCNFS) and (DOS && NCSA) were
replaced with HAVE_PCNFS and HAVE_NCSA, respectively. It seems logical
to do the same at the only remaining occurrence of DOS, PCNFS, and NCSA.
For context on the latter: the actual warning was about #elif DOS, similar to
#elif HAVE_WINSOCK and #elif MACOS, but looking into it it seemed to make sense
to bring socket.h in line with sockbuf.c.
In libraries/liblunicode/ucdata/ucgendat.c:
Use #if HARDCODE_DATA consistently, replacing two instances of #ifdef.
HARDCODE_DATA is always defined, and this way you can set HARDCODE_DATA
to 0 and have it work, rather than it going down the wrong branch and
failing in these two cases.
An IPR notice, with this work having been done as part of my employment:
The attached file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the
modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the following patch
were developed by Hitachi Vantara. Hitachi Vantara has not assigned
rights and/or interest in this work to any party. I, Connor Smith, am
authorized by Hitachi Vantara, my employer, to release this work under
the following terms.
Hitachi Vantara hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP
Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence,
these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any
purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice.
Please let me know if there are any issues with the attached patch, or if
there's anything else I need to do. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9904
Issue ID: 9904
Summary: A Potential NPD
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: 1157401338(a)qq.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 911
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=911&action=edit
diagram of NPD
Hi, I found a NPD bug in the project source code of ldap, and I have shown the
execution sequence of the program that may have generated the bug on a
diagram,which is added to the attachment
The red text illustrates the steps that created the bug
the red arrows represent the call relationships
the file path can be seen in the blue framed section.
additionally,at step 4 I do not expand more detail about why function
ber_memalloc_x can return null(actually it can be seen as function malloc and
the reason ber_memalloc_x return null is same with malloc),because there are
many code snippet can be found in project source code that judge whether
ber_memalloc_x return null and make further process if return value equal to
null.
I look forward to your reply and thank you very much for your patience!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9901
Issue ID: 9901
Summary: Fix non-standard printf arguments in liblbert and
libldap
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael.osipov(a)siemens.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 910
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=910&action=edit
Patch gainst source tarball
As a followup to Bug 9898 and Bug 9899 I have played around with LLVM 13 and
"-std=c17 -pedantic -Wall" it fails to compile several files. Find a patch
attached which makes it standards compliant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9899
Issue ID: 9899
Summary: "cyrus.c" uses non-portable GNU extension for void
pointer arithmetics and fails on HP-UX aCC
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.3
Hardware: All
OS: Other
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael.osipov(a)siemens.com
Target Milestone: ---
On HP-UX with cc: HP C/aC++ B3910B A.06.29 [Oct 18 2016]
tells me
libtool: compile: /opt/aCC/bin/aCC -Ae -g -I../../include -I../../include
-I/opt/ports/include -DLDAP_LIBRARY -c cyrus.c -DPIC -o .libs/cyrus.o
"cyrus.c", line 420: error #3143: arithmetic on pointer to void or function
type
memcpy( cb_data + plen, cbv.bv_val, cbv.bv_len );
^
1 error detected in the compilation of "cyrus.c".
gmake[2]: *** [Makefile:434: cyrus.lo] Error 1
void pointer arithmetics is not valid/undefined and just a GNU extension
supported by GCC or clang.
I was able to reproduce this on FreeBSD clang version 13.0.0
(git@github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git llvmorg-13.0.0-0-gd7b669b3a303):
osipovmi@deblndw011x:~/var/Projekte/openldap-2.6.3/libraries/libldap
$ cc -std=c17 -I../../include -I../../include -I/usr/local/include
-DLDAP_LIBRARY -c cyrus.c -o cyrus.o -pedantic -Werror
cyrus.c:420:18: error: arithmetic on a pointer to void is a GNU extension
[-Werror,-Wpointer-arith]
memcpy( cb_data + plen, cbv.bv_val, cbv.bv_len );
~~~~~~~ ^
1 error generated.
I am not a daily C hacker, but I guess cb_data needs to be typed to "unsigned
char" just like data from sasl_channel_binding_t
(https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/blob/cb549ef71c5bb646fe583697ebdcab…).
Or at least a malloc with an "unsigned char", save the pointer start address,
copy the prefix, increment by prefix length, copy the channel binding value and
then assign the pointer start address to the output struct.
I will unset SASL_CHANNEL_BINDING for now since it is not required in your AD
environment when SASL GSSAPI with minssf=1 is set.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9957
Issue ID: 9957
Summary: slapo-dynlist manpage needs better description of
dynlist-attrset
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Each dynlist-attrset defines one of three distinct behaviours:
- dynamic list (attributes are gathered from other entries)
- dynamic group (DNs are gathered based on other entries)
- static group (DNs are gathered based on DNs stored on entries)
With the groups possibly being recursive, requiring traversal.
Since the above do not mix, the documentation should be more explicit about how
each one should look and behave. It should also be noted somewhere what happens
(or not) when multiple dynlist-attrset stanzas would apply to the same entry.
At that point, configuration code could also be made more strict to reject
configurations that satisfy the apparent dynlist-attrset syntax but do not
actually represent anything that fits just one of the above and is therefore
nonsensical (with parts of it apparently ignored at runtime). With nonsensical
configuration rejected, it would be possible to streamline internal dynlist
structures and make critical parts of the overlay code more readable.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.