openldap-bugs September 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
161 discussions

[Issue 9506] New: dynlist: member expansion when member attribute not requested
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9506 Issue ID: 9506 Summary: dynlist: member expansion when member attribute not requested Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- When configured to do dynamic "member" expansion, i.e.: overlay dynlist dynlist-attrset groupOfURLs memberURL member Any query against an object that would trigger this expansion will incur a penalty while dynlist does the expansion work even if there was no request for the member attribute. Currently that can be worked around by specifying the manageDSAit control when doing a search on the object, but this may not be feasible for some client applications and additionally other directory servers do not do this expansion for their dynamic group implementations unless the underlying configured attribute is explicitly requested. We've already implemented this in dynlist for the memberOfAD case, we should do it here as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9269] New: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9269 Issue ID: 9269 Summary: "hidden" "subordinate" database is shown in a directory tree Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- "hidden" configuration option is ignored by slapd (not honored by "glue" overlay?) if the database it tries to hide is also a "subordinate" database. Checked for openldap 2.4.47 and current git master (f3952d9). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Bug 9229] New: Make liblutil usable by libldap
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

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.

1 10

[Bug 9221] New: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9221 Bug ID: 9221 Summary: Move all replication consumer code into its own overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- (In relation to a discussion about slapo-chain) <hyc> anyway, the nicer ting to fix would be in 2.5, push all of the repl consumer code into its own overlay <hyc> in that case, updateref would be processed wherever the overlay was configured <hyc> so no longer tied to the frontend <hyc> it would also make it more feasible to have multiple different consumer configs in a single DB, each with their own provider URL (and thus their own updateref) <hyc> I would think we can get rid of the update ref directive entirely, just point all writes to that consumer's provider. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 6

[Bug 9218] New: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9218 Bug ID: 9218 Summary: Revist entry_release handling in slapo-pache, slapo-translucent Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 items: [13:57] <hyc> there's a nagging problem though, pcache's entry_release function needs to distinguish between its backend actually freeing the entry, or being a no-op [13:57] <hyc> so it can decide whether to return success or continue [13:58] <hyc> the patch to translucent sidesteps the question, by avoiding other overlays [13:58] <hyc> but we need to revisit this in 2.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 8

[Bug 9217] New: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9217 Bug ID: 9217 Summary: Audit all schema definitions to have official non-experimental OIDs where possible Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From a past discussion with hyc on 2.5 requirements: [09:27] <hyc> we also need to audit all of these schema defs [09:27] <hyc> we're supposed to have official, non-experimental OIDs for released schema [09:28] <hyc> accesslog is still using 666, experimental arc [09:29] <hyc> I think this means we should polish up the logschema draft, Informational status, and publish it again as final -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 12

[Bug 9216] New: Port autoca to gnutls
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Nov '23

08 Nov '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9216 Bug ID: 9216 Summary: Port autoca to gnutls Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For 2.5, support building and running the autoca overlay with GnuTLS. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 8

[Issue 10072] New: Querying for transaction memory use
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Oct '23

29 Oct '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10072 Issue ID: 10072 Summary: Querying for transaction memory use Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: tagwerk19.openldap(a)innerjoin.org Target Milestone: --- It would be useful to have a way to ask liblmdb how much "dirty memory" a transaction is using, up to that point. The goal is to be able to bundle writes into fewer transactions, making best use of available memory and reducing total disc writes. It is possible for an application to count the number of writes but this has only a loose relation to the *actual* number of dirty pages flagged. The target would be to write data up until the dirty memory gets to a threshold and then commit. I see that there's a: txn->mt_dirty_room and wonder if MDB_IDL_UM_MAX - txn->mt_dirty_room would give a count of that an "aware" application could make use of (an exact count? or maybe a usable and sufficient indication?) The need for this has been sharpened with the use of systemd service files that cap the memory allowed for a process, for example: MemoryHigh=512M If the process reaches this limit and continues to write data, the system uses swap. See: https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo/-/merge_requests/148 Thank you for providing and supporting LMDB -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10045] New: back-config operations abandoned while waiting in slap_pause_server() aren't committed to ldif
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Oct '23

24 Oct '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10045 Issue ID: 10045 Summary: back-config operations abandoned while waiting in slap_pause_server() aren't committed to ldif Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- slap_pause_server() can take an unbounded time to process and it is possible the operation is abandoned in the meantime (e.g. the connection is lost and the loss is still noticed at this point). However the processing still goes ahead and passed onto back-ldif - where it is discarded as abandoned already so we can end up with an inconsistent view of our persistent configuration. Checking op->o_abandon again after slap_pause_server() finishes might be enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

2 13

[Issue 10095] New: Race condition causing corruption of mutexes when closing the database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Oct '23

24 Oct '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10095 Issue ID: 10095 Summary: Race condition causing corruption of mutexes when closing the database 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: peter(a)peterzhu.ca Target Milestone: --- We're running into a race condition across multiple processes causing the corruption of mutexes when a process closes the database caused by the fix for https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9278 (commit https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/f683ffdc81d0edb20437cb7…). Here's the interleaving of two processes (p0 and p1) that can cause this situation. p0: Opens connection to database using mdb_env_create and mdb_env_open. ...some things happen in between... p0: Begins closing the database using mdb_env_close: p0: Calls mdb_env_close0: p0: Acquires write lock on the file lock using mdb_env_excl_lock. p0: Calls pthread_mutex_destroy on the mutexes. SWITCH TO p1 p1: Begins opening the database using mdb_env_create. Then calls mdb_env_open, in mdb_env_open: p1: Calls mdb_env_setup_locks: p1: Calls mdb_env_excl_lock, but it's unable to acquire a write file lock due to p0 holding the write file lock. It waits on acquiring a read file lock. SWITCH TO p0 p0: Calls close on the file descriptor which releases the write lock. SWITCH TO p1 p1: Acquires the read file lock. p1: Does NOT call pthread_mutex_init since it did not acquire a write file lock. ...some things happen in between... p1: Try to lock the mutex using pthread_mutex_lock. This call fails with a EINVAL due to locking a destroyed mutex. I'm not sure how to actually solve this problem. We're currently mitigating this problem by reverting the commit linked above (so no mutexes get destroyed). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 13

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2023