https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10247
Issue ID: 10247
Summary: libldap should reject unrecognized critical URL
extensions
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.8
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently the only URL extension libldap recognizes is StartTLS. It ignores
anything else, but it is not supposed to ignore them if they're marked
critical.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10242
Issue ID: 10242
Summary: Improve syncrepl client traceability
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: ---
The o_log_prefix in do_syncrepl()'s internal operation could be tweaked to
contain the rid=..., that would significantly improve syncrepl traceability in
the server logs and gdb.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9303
Issue ID: 9303
Summary: Add support for WolfSSL as an alternative to OpenSSL
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For OpenLDAP 2.6, we should investigate adding support for WolfSSL as an
alternative to OpenSSL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8673
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 9886 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10260
Issue ID: 10260
Summary: Document alignment of MDB_val.mv_data
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: sascha(a)brawer.ch
Target Milestone: ---
In lmdb.h, could the documentation for MDB_val talk about alignment of mv_data?
For example, is the key guaranteed to be aligned to an 8-byte boundary if a
table got created with MDB_INTEGERKEY? What about values in MDB_INTEGERDUP
tables? Can database values be directly loaded into SIMD registers (of what
width?) without first copying the data to an aligned location?
On some processor architectures, unaliged reads lead to bus errors; therefore,
it would help programmers to know whether LMDB makes any alignment guarantees.
Even if clients cannot assume anything, it would be good if LMDB’s public API
documentation could state so.
Many thanks for documenting this! Just adding 1 or 2 sentences to the MDB_val
section in lmdb.h would be enough.
— Sascha Brawer, sascha(a)brawer.ch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10262
Issue ID: 10262
Summary: Feature request: configurable memory alignment of LMDB
keys and values
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: sascha(a)brawer.ch
Target Milestone: ---
When creating an LMDB table, it would be nice if an application could request
how its keys and values will be aligned in memory.
Currently, LMDB seems to gives 2-byte alignment; see LMDB issue 10260. On most
non-Intel CPUs, unaligned reads will cause SIGBUS errors, so any data with
32-bit or 64-bit values has to be accessed in multiple 16-bit chunks (which is
inefficient), or copied out of LMDB-mapped memory into a custom, properly
aligned buffer (which is inefficient, too). To prevent such performance
degradation, it would be nice if applications could request alignment of keys
and/or values to 8-byte boundaries. Then, LMDB data would have the same
alignment guarantees as malloc().
The Linux kernel has a nice description of alignment:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.html
Even on Intel CPUs, being able to specify alignment would be useful. For
example, AVX-512 benefits from data being aligned to 64-byte boundaries. If an
application could request 64-byte alignment for a given table, its values could
be loaded direclty into AVX-512 registers. This would be useful for
applications whose tables contain bitvectors or other data suitable for SIMD
proceesing.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/data-a…
Of course, padding comes at a cost. It increases storage space and reduces
cache effectiveness. It would be wasteful to align each key and value in every
table to some boundary. Hence the suggestion to make this configurable per
table, perhaps with additional flags for mdb_dbi_open().
One could argue that memory alignment is out of scope for LMDB, leaving it up
to applications to deal with misalignments. However, because of the cost of
workarounds, it would make LMDB (significantly) less efficient than it could
be, even on Intel CPUs. Thus, many thanks for considering this feature request.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9002
--- Comment #4 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
It's a tradeoff. If you can't accomodate the potential DB size increase, you
must stop slapd. If you can't tolerate stopping slapd, you have to provide
enough disk space.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9022
--- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Add it as a new option under -o flag
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9002
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|slapd |documentation
--- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Document best practices for consistent backups, namely: Stop slapd, slapcat,
start slapd, perhaps a dedicated server for this purpose.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8757
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|2.7.0 |3.0.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.