openldap-bugs March 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
122 discussions

[Issue 9736] New: pwrite bug in OSX breaking LMDB promise about the maximum value size
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 May '23

22 May '23

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.

1 2

[Issue 10021] New: Cannot insert data into wiredtiger backend
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10021 Issue ID: 10021 Summary: Cannot insert data into wiredtiger backend Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: jailbird(a)fdf.net Target Milestone: --- I have a test system running OpenLDAP 2.6.4 linked against WiredTiger 11.1.0 running on a RHEL9.1-based system. Running kernel is 6.1.16, filesystem is XFS. back_wt.la was added to cn=module and a simple olcDatabase=wt was created like: dn: olcDatabase=wt objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcWtConfig olcDatabase: wt olcDbDirectory: /var/lib/ldap olcSuffix: dc=fdf,dc=net olcLimits: {0}dn.base="cn=root,dc=fdf,dc=net" time.soft=unlimited time.hard=u nlimited size.soft=unlimited size.hard=unlimited olcRootDN: cn=root,dc=fdf,dc=net olcWtConfig: create olcDbIndex: objectClass,uid,gidNumber,uidNumber pres,eq olcDbIndex: ou,cn,mail pres,eq,sub structuralObjectClass: olcWtConfig I start slapd and it creates the database files correctly. I then go and try to create the container with a simple .ldif and ldapadd: dn: dc=fdf,dc=net objectClass: dcObject objectClass: organization o: FDF dc: fdf That generates: [1677801597:758327][83158:0x55b4158fb640], file:dn2id.wt, WT_CURSOR.insert: [WT_VERB_DEFAULT][ERROR]: __wt_txn_id_check, 1339: write operations are not supported in read-committed or read-uncommitted transactions.: Operation not supported Mar 2 15:59:57 slapd[83158]: wt_dn2id_add: insert failed: Operation not supported (95) That comes from WiredTiger @ https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/5a032be765b1ebd9bb789e837cd00… but I don't seem to understand why it's happening on a simple add? Am I missing something obvious? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9436] New: OpenSSL 3.0: libldap uses depreciated functions
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Apr '23

27 Apr '23

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 18

[Issue 9832] New: back-monitor crash when sizelimit in operation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 20 Apr '23

20 Apr '23

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 5

[Issue 10034] New: Assertion 'i < NUMKEYS(mp)' failed in mdb_page_search_root()"
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10034 Issue ID: 10034 Summary: Assertion 'i < NUMKEYS(mp)' failed in mdb_page_search_root()" Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.23 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 763280032(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- We found that when lmdb is opened after OS startup and data is written to it, lmdb will trigger abort probabilistically(Restart the OS 600 times will trigger once); We want to know what situation triggers this issue(Assertion 'i < NUMKEYS(mp)' failed in mdb_page_search_root()); we want to know if there is a problem with our usage; Please Help Us (gdb) x/8s 0x8baee988 0x8baee988: "8\373Բ\b\371Բmdb.c:5542: Assertion 'i < NUMKEYS(mp)' failed in mdb_page_search_root()" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 9460] New: Drop support for OpenSSL older than 1.1.1
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Apr '23

11 Apr '23

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.

1 5

[Issue 8977] Make IDL sizes configurable in back-mdb
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 28 Mar '23

28 Mar '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8977 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=10031 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10027] New: MDB_TXN_FULL on large write transactions
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 28 Mar '23

28 Mar '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10027 Issue ID: 10027 Summary: MDB_TXN_FULL on large write transactions Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: renault.cle(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, Our users ([1], [2]) encountered MDB_TXN_FULL errors when our Meilisearch engine processed a large write transaction. We did read the documentation about this error in the codebase of LMDB: Spill pages from the dirty list back to disk. This is intended to prevent running into #MDB_TXN_FULL situations, but note that they may still occur in a few cases: 1) our estimate of the txn size could be too small. Currently this seems unlikely, except with a large number of #MDB_MULTIPLE items. 2) child txns may run out of space if their parents dirtied a lot of pages and never spilled them. TODO: we probably should do a preemptive spill during #mdb_txn_begin() of a child txn, if the parent's dirty_room is below a given threshold. Otherwise, if not using nested txns, it is expected that apps will not run into #MDB_TXN_FULL any more. The pages are flushed to disk the same way as for a txn commit, e.g. their P_DIRTY flag is cleared. If the txn never references them again, they can be left alone. If the txn only reads them, they can be used without any fuss. If the txn writes them again, they can be dirtied immediately without going thru all of the work of #mdb_page_touch(). Such references are handled by #mdb_page_unspill(). However, It looks like we are not in those scenarios, we are not using MDB_DUPFIXED, and we are not using sub-transactions. We don't use the MDB_VL32 flag either, so this is not related to [3]. Thank you for your time, Have a nice day 💡 [1]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3603 [2]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3349 [3]: https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8813 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10029] New: slapd crashes when run with unlimited open files
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Mar '23

27 Mar '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10029 Issue ID: 10029 Summary: slapd crashes when run with unlimited open files Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: All OS: Mac OS Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: gray(a)nxg.name Target Milestone: --- To reproduce: % ulimit -n unlimited % $T/openldap-2.6.4/libexec/slapd -d-1 641ee8bc.32f05820 0x1dc760140 @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.6.4 (Mar 25 2023 12:25:49) $ openldap 641ee8bc.32f39ff8 0x1dc760140 daemon_init: <null> 641ee8bc.32f40588 0x1dc760140 daemon: SLAP_SOCK_INIT: dtblsize=-1 641ee8bc.32f43080 0x1dc760140 ch_calloc of 1 elems of 18446744073709551615 bytes failed Assertion failed: (0), function ch_calloc, file ch_malloc.c, line 107. zsh: abort $T/openldap-2.6.4/libexec/slapd -d-1 This is because `daemon.c` (line 1867) uses the maximum number of open files to set `dtblsize`, which is subsequently used to size an array: 1867 #ifdef HAVE_SYSCONF 1868 dtblsize = sysconf( _SC_OPEN_MAX ); 1869 #elif defined(HAVE_GETDTABLESIZE) 1870 dtblsize = getdtablesize(); 1871 #else /* ! HAVE_SYSCONF && ! HAVE_GETDTABLESIZE */ 1872 dtblsize = FD_SETSIZE; 1873 #endif /* ! HAVE_SYSCONF && ! HAVE_GETDTABLESIZE */ If the maximum number of FDs is unlimited, then sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX) returns -1, and the program crashes when it tries to malloc that much memory. I've marked this as OS=macOS because that's what I'm illustrating this on, but the same thing would happen on any OS where the sysconf call returns a negative number for the 'unlimited' case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10022] New: OlcAccess (META)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Mar '23

27 Mar '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10022 Issue ID: 10022 Summary: OlcAccess (META) Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.7 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: bourguijl(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Dears, I've configured a META ldap instance pointing to a LDAP backend. In this backend, there are a few ACLs but which ones don't restrict ldapsearch that I perform from the META frontend. I just have an issue when I set some ACLs on the META frontend and more specially when I insert attrs=xxx in the ACL. ACL = OK {0}to dn.one="ou=staff,o=mobistar.be" by dn="uid=a0621004,ou=ObeExternalITOnGcp,ou=partners,o=mobistar.be" read ACL NOT OK {0}to dn.one="ou=staff,o=mobistar.be" attrs=uid by dn="uid=a0621004,ou=ObeExternalITOnGcp,ou=partners,o=mobistar.be" read Can you explain why when I restrict to an attribute, my ldapsearch didn't provide me any response as expected ? Is it a bug ? Thx in advance, J-L. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2023