openldap-bugs April 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
110 discussions

[Issue 10033] New: olcDbCacheSize in mdb configuration example
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10033 Issue ID: 10033 Summary: olcDbCacheSize in mdb configuration example Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: stefan(a)kania-online.de Target Milestone: --- on Page: https://openldap.org/doc/admin26/overlays.html#The%20Proxy%20Cache%20Engine There is an example for pcache-db configuration for a mdb-database: ----------- dn: olcDatabase={0}mdb,olcOverlay={0}pcache,olcDatabase={2}ldap,cn=config objectClass: olcMdbConfig objectClass: olcPcacheDatabase olcDatabase: {0}mdb olcDbDirectory: ./testrun/db.2.a olcDbCacheSize: 20 olcDbIndex: objectClass eq olcDbIndex: cn,sn,uid,mail pres,eq,sub ----------- But olcDbCacheSize is an bdb/hdb attribute. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9999] New: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-search.c
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9999 Issue ID: 9999 Summary: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-search.c Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 1061499390(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- Version: Github:master Potential memory leak in slapd-search.c line 207.Calling ldap_search_ext_s() without calling ldap_msgfree() to free the memory will cause a memory leak. Doc says "Note that res parameter of ldap_search_ext_s() and ldap_search_s() should be freed with ldap_msgfree() regardless of return value of these functions." in https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap_search_ext_s&apropos=0… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9996] New: Potential memory leak in libraries/librewrite/ldapmap.c
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9996 Issue ID: 9996 Summary: Potential memory leak in libraries/librewrite/ldapmap.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: 1061499390(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- Version: Github:master Potential memory leak in ldapmap.c line 359.Calling ldap_search_ext_s() without calling ldap_msgfree() to free the memory will cause a memory leak. Doc says "Note that res parameter of ldap_search_ext_s() and ldap_search_s() should be freed with ldap_msgfree() regardless of return value of these functions." in https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap_search_ext_s&apropos=0… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10030] New: Add support for OpenSSL 3.0 to 2.5 stable release
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10030 Issue ID: 10030 Summary: Add support for OpenSSL 3.0 to 2.5 stable release Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 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 OpenSSL 1.1.1 is being sunset September 2023 we will need to add OpenSSL 3.0 support to the 2.5 series. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10041] New: unnecessary dynlist evaluation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10041 Issue ID: 10041 Summary: unnecessary dynlist evaluation Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 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: --- Created attachment 963 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=963&action=edit openldap config + data for showing the dynlist usecase Evaluation of member of dynamic groups by dynlist can be slow. However, in some context, the evaluation is not necessary, especially when searching object that are not dynamic groups. You can find attached a configuration and data file showing the use case: - 10000 users - 100 static groups - 5000 dynamic groups, with a filter (&(uid=user*)(objectClass=person), grabbing all users Example of "normal" slow search ~ 115s: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com)' Example of abnormal slow search ~ 115s: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(&(objectClass=groupOfNames)(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com))' Here, the filter about the objectClass could be evaluated first to avoid unnecessary search in dynamic groups. Example of rapid search with DSA IT ~ 1ms: ldapsearch -x -H 'ldap://localhost:389/' -D 'uid=admin,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com' -w 'secret' -b 'ou=groups,dc=my-organization,dc=com' '(&(objectClass=groupOfNames)(member=uid=user1,ou=people,dc=my-organization,dc=com))' -M -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10000] New: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-watcher.c
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10000 Issue ID: 10000 Summary: Potential memory leak in tests/progs/slapd-watcher.c Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 1061499390(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- Version: Github:master Potential memory leak in slapd-watcher.c line 517.Calling ldap_search_ext_s() without calling ldap_msgfree() to free the memory will cause a memory leak. Doc says "Note that res parameter of ldap_search_ext_s() and ldap_search_s() should be freed with ldap_msgfree() regardless of return value of these functions." in https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap_search_ext_s&apropos=0… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10023] New: Asynchronous connects are broken
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10023 Issue ID: 10023 Summary: Asynchronous connects are broken Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ipuleston(a)sonicwall.com Target Milestone: --- We have a port of OpenLDAP client running in an embedded system, which is using asynchronous connects to the LDAP server. We have been using OpenLDAP 2.4.40 for a long time, and I just upgraded it to use 2.5.14 (as the current LTS release). After doing this, async connects to the LDAP server no longer work. You can see this in the following debug output: A successful async connect with 2.4.40: ldap_send_initial_request ldap_new_connection 1 1 0 ldap_int_open_connection ldap_connect_to_host: TCP Ian-DC1.sd80.com:389 ldap_pvt_gethostbyname_a: host=Ian-DC1.sd80.com, r=0 ldap_new_socket: 251 ldap_prepare_socket: 251 ldap_connect_to_host: Trying 192.168.168.3:389 ldap_pvt_connect: fd: 251 tm: 10 async: -1 ldap_ndelay_on: 251 attempting to connect: connect errno: 115 ldap_int_poll: fd: -1 tm: 0 A failed async connect with 2.5.14: ldap_send_initial_request ldap_new_connection 1 1 0 ldap_int_open_connection ldap_connect_to_host: TCP Ian-DC1.sd80.com:389 ldap_pvt_gethostbyname_a: host=Ian-DC1.sd80.com, r=0 ldap_new_socket: 247 ldap_prepare_socket: 247 ldap_connect_to_host: Trying 10.21.61.3:389 ldap_pvt_connect: fd: 247 tm: 10 async: -1 ldap_ndelay_on: 247 attempting to connect: connect errno: 115 ldap_open_defconn: successful ldap_send_server_request Sending Bind Request, len=0x6ca10c1f ldap_write: want=63 error=Resource temporarily unavailable Note that in both cases the connect attempt returns errno 115, EINPROGRESS, meaning that it has not completed. But after that: ● 2.4.40 calls ldap_int_poll (via ldap_send_initial_request -> ldap_int_check_async_open) to begin the wait for async completion. ● 2.5.14 instead reports a successful connect, and tries to send the bind which fails since thre socket is not yet connected. I tracked the problem down to a change made for ITS #8022 "an async connect may still succeed immediately" in this commit: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/ae6347bac12bbf843678a83… That change in ldap_new_connection makes it set lconn_status for an async connect to LDAP_CONNST_CONNECTED rather than LDAP_CONNST_CONNECTING if ldap_int_open_connection returns 0. The problem is that ldap_int_open_connection returns 0 after getting the EINPROGRESS. ldap_connect_to_host returns -2 for the latter, but ldap_int_open_connection doesn't check for that, returning 0 for any return code other than -1. I think that the bug is actually in ldap_int_open_connection rather than in the above commit. It should probably return -2 when ldap_connect_to_host returns that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 18

[Issue 10011] New: Incompatibilities with stricter C99 compilers
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 10 Jul '23

10 Jul '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10011 Issue ID: 10011 Summary: Incompatibilities with stricter C99 compilers Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sam(a)gentoo.org Target Milestone: --- Newer C compilers (>= Clang 16 and likely >= GCC 14) reject some constructs removed in C99 like implicit function declarations and implicit ints. Some compilers are also starting to reject obsolete K&R prototypes which were removed in C23. I've filed an MR at https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/605 to address the issues in configure as well as a small number of issues in the codebase itself. For more information, see LWN.net [0] or LLVM's Discourse [1], the Gentoo wiki [2], or the (new) c-std-porting mailing list [3]. [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ [1] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/configure-script-breakage-with-the-new-werror-… [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Modern_C_porting [3] hosted at lists.linux.dev. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs April 2023