openldap-bugs May 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
109 discussions

[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 10054] New: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10054 Issue ID: 10054 Summary: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: louis(a)meilisearch.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, According to the documentation[0], a database that is not using `MDB_DUPSORT` can store values up to `0xffffffff` bytes (around 4GB). In practice, under Linux, the actual limit is `0x7ffff000` though (2^31 - 4096, so around 2GB). This is due to the write loop in `mdb_page_flush`. The `wsize` value determining how many bytes will be written can be as big as `4096*dp->mp_pages`[1], and the number of overflow pages grows with the size of the value put inside the DB. The `wsize` is not split in smaller chunks in the case where there are many overflow pages to write, and as a result the call to `pwrite`[2] does not perform a full write, but only a "short" write of 2147479552 bytes (the maximum allowed on a call to `pwrite` on Linux[3]). This would be OK if the short write condition was handled by looping and performing another `pwrite` with the rest of the data, but instead `EIO` is returned[4]. There seems to be a related, but different issue on macOS when trying to `pwrite` more the 2^31 bytes, that was already reported[5]. This issue was reported to me by a Meilisearch user because it causes their database indexing to fail[6]. I had to investigate a bit because their setup was peculiar (high number of documents in their database) and the `EIO` error code is not very descriptive of the underlying issue. I join a C reproducer of the issue that attempts to add a 2147479553 bytes value to the DB and fails with `EIO` (decreasing `nb_items` to a smaller value such as `2107479552` does succeed)[7]. Thank you for making LMDB! Louis Dureuil. [0]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/lmdb.h#LL284… [1]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#LL3770… [2]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3820 [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70368651/why-cant-linux-write-more-than… [4]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3840 [5]: https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9736 [6]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3654 [7]: https://github.com/dureuill/lmdb_3654/tree/main -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10062] New: How to store a data item of length greater than 511 in a dupsort db
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10062 Issue ID: 10062 Summary: How to store a data item of length greater than 511 in a dupsort db Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.30 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mega.alpha100(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Is there a workaround to storing a data item with a length greater than the value of `fn mdb_env_get_maxkeysize()` or 511 in a dupsort db? Also, I tried to change the value of the `MDB_MAXKEYSIZE` macro but that led to an illegal instruction -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10050] New: Use of stack allocated string in mdb_strerror
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10050 Issue ID: 10050 Summary: Use of stack allocated string in mdb_strerror Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: es(a)m-labs.hk Target Milestone: --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/mdb.master/libraries/libl… This piece of code exists from 2014, and these lines are not working outside of MSVC. Moreover, they lead to segfaults in MINGW compiled environments. Please see the patch we use for potential fix: https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/blob/31012dd33a32390d1e5f9b93388799… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10056] New: test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls failures on static builds
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10056 Issue ID: 10056 Summary: test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls failures on static builds Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kaction(a)disroot.org Target Milestone: --- Hello. I am getting following test error when trying to build `openldap` statically: ``` [nix-shell:/tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests]$ ./run test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls Cleaning up test run directory leftover from previous run. Running ./scripts/test069-delta-multiprovider-starttls for mdb... running defines.sh Initializing server configurations... Starting server 1 on TCP/IP port 9011... Using ldapsearch to check that server 1 is running... Waiting 5 seconds for slapd to start... Using ldapadd for context on server 1... Starting server 2 on TCP/IP port 9012... Using ldapsearch to check that server 2 is running... Waiting 5 seconds for slapd to start... Using ldapadd to populate server 1... Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... Using ldapadd to populate server 2... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... Breaking replication between server 1 and 2... Using ldapmodify to force conflicts between server 1 and 2... Restoring replication between server 1 and 2... Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 1... Using ldapsearch to read all the entries from server 2... Comparing retrieved entries from server 1 and server 2... test failed - server 1 and server 2 databases differ (561) ``` I added line number (561) into error message to pinpoint it more precisely. And here is difference between databases: ``` --- /tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests/testrun/server1.flt 2023-05-23 22:53:51.000965129 -0400 +++ /tmp/openldap-static/openldap-2.6.4/tests/testrun/server2.flt 2023-05-23 22:53:51.005965136 -0400 @@ -289,13 +289,10 @@ userPassword:: amFq dn: cn=James A Jones 2,ou=Alumni Association,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com -carLicense: 123-XYZ cn: James A Jones 2 cn: James Jones cn: Jim Jones -description: Amazing description: Bizarre -description: Mindboggling description: Stupendous employeeNumber: 64 employeeType: deadwood @@ -307,7 +304,7 @@ pager: +1 313 555 3923 postalAddress: Alumni Association $ 111 Maple St $ Anytown, MI 48109 seeAlso: cn=All Staff,ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com -sn: Surname +sn: Jones telephoneNumber: +1 313 555 0895 title: Mad Cow Researcher, UM Alumni Association uid: jaj ``` Suggestions on what more information I can provide are welcome. You can also try to build `pkgsStatic.openldap` in this nixpkgs [commit](f9e32f61282275eb5fa9064e08bbd0a92d1187de) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 10061] New: Query on setting TLSVerifyClient option set to demand
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Jun '23

12 Jun '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10061 Issue ID: 10061 Summary: Query on setting TLSVerifyClient option set to demand Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ramajay52(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Dear Experts, In my case, I had set TLSVerifyClient to demand. I couldn't be able to establish a connection While providing TLSCACertificateFile alone. While setting the TLSVerifyClient option demand is it mandatory to provide the following option? 1. TLSCACertificateFile 2. TLSCertificateKeyFile 3. TLSCertificateFile Regards, Ram -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 8447] LMDB: Overwriting values in MDB_DUPSORT databases broken
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 May '23

25 May '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8447 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- Fixed in RE0.9: • 76bad923 by Howard Chu at 2023-05-25T19:33:44+00:00 ITS#8447 fix cursor_put(MDB_CURRENT) on DUPSORT DB with different-sized data -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[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 10055] New: EOS EOL
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 19 May '23

19 May '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10055 Issue ID: 10055 Summary: EOS EOL Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.44 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: andrew.hudson(a)rtx.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, I work with Raytheon Intelligence and Space. I just have a quick question. I am in charge of keeping track of the software that is on my program's environment. We are on version 2.4.44. I am just wondering what the End of Support and the end of life of this version. Thank you very much. Andrew Hudson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2023