openldap-bugs January 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
26 discussions

[Issue 10020] New: dynlist's @groupOfUniqueNames is considered only for the first configuration line
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '25

13 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10020 Issue ID: 10020 Summary: dynlist's @groupOfUniqueNames is considered only for the first configuration line Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: msl(a)touk.pl Target Milestone: --- If we consider the following configuration of dynlist: {0}toukPerson labeledURI uniqueMember+memberOf@groupOfUniqueNames {1}groupOfURLs memberURL uniqueMember+dgMemberOf@groupOfUniqueNames The {0} entry will correctly populate the memberOf relatively to static group membership. The {1} entry will produce dgMemberOf with dynamic group membership correctly (based on memberURL query) but it will not populate static entries IF {0} entry in configuration is present. IF I remove {0} from the dynlist configuration - or - remove @groupOfUniqueNames part from this configuration line, then both dynamic and static entries will be populated correctly for {1}. So the effects are as follows on some user entry: if both {0} and {1} are present - {1} produced only dynamic groups: memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl if both {0} and {1} are present and @groupOfUniqueNames is removed from {0} - {1} produced static+dynamic groups: dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl If only {1} is present - {1} produced static+dynamic groups: dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl For completness - if only {0} is present: memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl I would expect this behavior to be correct for the first case - {0} and {1}. memberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl memberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=dyntouk,ou=dyntest,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=adm,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl dgMemberOf: cn=touk,ou=touk,ou=group,dc=touk,dc=pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 10274] New: Replication issue on MMR configuration
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Jan '25

09 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10274 Issue ID: 10274 Summary: Replication issue on MMR configuration Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: falgon.comp(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1036 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1036&action=edit In this attachment you will find 2 openldap configurations for 2 instances + slamd conf exemple + 5 screenshots to show the issue and one text file to explain what you see Hello we are openning this issue further to the initial post in technical : https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… Issue : We are working on a project and we've come across an issue with the replication after performance testing : *Configuration :* RHEL 8.6 OpenLDAP 2.5.14 *MMR-delta *configuration on multiple servers attached 300,000 users configured and used for tests *olcLastBind: TRUE* Use of SLAMD (performance shooting) *Problem description:* We are currently running performance and resilience tests on our infrastructure using the SLAMD tool configured to perform BINDs and MODs on a defined range of accounts. We use a load balancer (VIP) to poll all of our servers equally. (but it is possible to do performance tests directly on each of the directories) With our current infrastructure we're able to perform approximately 300 MOD/BIND/s. Beyond that, we start to generate delays and can randomly come across one issue. However, when we run performance tests that exceed our write capacity, our replication between servers can randomly create an incident with directories being unable to catch up with their replication delay. The directories update their contextCSNs, but extremely slowly (like freezing). From then on, it's impossible for the directories to catch again. (even with no incoming traffic) A restart of the instance is required to perform a full refresh and solve the incident. We have enabled synchronization logs and have no error or refresh logs to indicate a problem ( we can provide you with logs if necessary). We suspect a write collision or a replication conflict but this is never write in our sync logs. We've run a lot of tests. For example, when we run a performance test on a single live server, we don't reproduce the problem. Anothers examples: if we define different accounts ranges for each server with SALMD, we don't reproduce the problem either. If we use only one account for the range, we don't reproduce the problem either. ______________________________________________________________________ I have add some screenshots on attachement to show you the issue and all the explanations. ______________________________________________________________________ *Symptoms :* One or more directories can no longer be replicated normally after performance testing ends. No apparent error logs. Need a restart of instances to solve the problem. *How to reproduce the problem:* Have at least two servers in MMR mode Set LastBind to TRUE Perform a SLAMD shot from a LoadBalancer in bandwidth mode OR start multiple SLAMD test on same time for each server with the same account range. Exceed the maximum write capacity of the servers. *SLAMD configuration :* authrate.sh --hostname ${HOSTNAME} --port ${PORTSSL} \ --useSSL --trustStorePath ${CACERTJKS} \ --trustStorePassword ${CACERTJKSPW} --bindDN "${BINDDN}" \ --bindPassword ${BINDPW} --baseDN "${BASEDN}" \ --filter "(uid=[${RANGE}])" --credentials ${USERPW} \ --warmUpIntervals ${WARMUP} \ --numThreads ${NTHREADS} ${ARGS} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Issue 10295] New: To compare strings in Java
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Jan '25

04 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10295 Issue ID: 10295 Summary: To compare strings in Java Product: JLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: JLDAP Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: chetansinha35(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1044 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1044&action=edit https://docs.vultr.com/java/java/examples/java/examples/reverse-a-number Java Program to Reversing a number in Java is a common task achieved using loops and arithmetic operations. By repeatedly extracting the last digit of the number with the modulus operator (%) and constructing the reversed number using multiplication and addition, the process is efficient. For example, a while loop can be used to iterate until the number becomes zero, applying reversed = reversed * 10 + number % 10. This logic makes reversing numbers simple and highlights Java's flexibility in handling number manipulation tasks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8988] Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 02 Jan '25

02 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8988 --- Comment #27 from jhaberman(a)gmail.com --- Unfortunately I can still reproduce this with LMDB 0.9.33. Repro: #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdio.h> #include "lmdb.h" #define VAL(str) {strlen(str), str} #define CHK(st) if (st != 0) { fprintf(stderr, "fail at %d\n", __LINE__); abort(); } int main() { MDB_env* lmdb; int status; status= mdb_env_create(&lmdb); CHK(status); status = mdb_env_open(lmdb, "/tmp/lmdb_repro", 0, 0644); CHK(status); MDB_txn* txn; status = mdb_txn_begin(lmdb, NULL, 0, &txn); CHK(status); MDB_dbi dbi; status = mdb_dbi_open(txn, NULL, MDB_CREATE | MDB_DUPSORT, &dbi); CHK(status); MDB_val k = VAL("key"); MDB_val v1 = VAL("val1"); status = mdb_put(txn, dbi, &k, &v1, MDB_NODUPDATA); CHK(status); MDB_val v2 = VAL("val2"); status = mdb_put(txn, dbi, &k, &v2, MDB_NODUPDATA); CHK(status); return 0; } $ clang -fsanitize=undefined -o repro repro.c mdb.c midl.c $ mkdir /tmp/lmdb_repro $ ./repro Output: --- mdb.c:7654:26: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x561c906b85d3 for type 'MDB_page2' (aka 'struct MDB_page2'), which requires 2 byte alignment 0x561c906b85d3: note: pointer points here 00 6b 65 79 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 52 00 10 00 2c 00 76 61 6c 31 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ^ SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior mdb.c:7654:26 in mdb.c:7654:26: runtime error: load of misaligned address 0x561c906b85df for type 'indx_t' (aka 'unsigned short'), which requires 2 byte alignment 0x561c906b85df: note: pointer points here 00 00 52 00 10 00 2c 00 76 61 6c 31 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ^ SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior mdb.c:7654:26 in mdb.c:7655:3: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x561c906b85d3 for type 'MDB_page' (aka 'struct MDB_page'), which requires 8 byte alignment 0x561c906b85d3: note: pointer points here 00 6b 65 79 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 52 00 10 00 2c 00 76 61 6c 31 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 [...] --- It appears that some instances of MDB_page2 are not 2-byte aligned. Is this expected? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8988] Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 02 Jan '25

02 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8988 --- Comment #26 from jhaberman(a)gmail.com --- I see now that https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/commit/3947014aed7ffe39a79991fa7fb5b234da47ad1a may have fixed this issue. I was using a version older than this commit. I will try updating and see if that fixes the problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8988] Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 01 Jan '25

01 Jan '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8988 --- Comment #25 from jhaberman(a)gmail.com --- I ran into this UBSAN error today: > third_party/liblmdb/mdb.c:7559:26: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x32577fcf7fd3 for type 'MDB_page' (aka 'struct MDB_page'), which requires 8 byte alignment 0x32577fcf7fd3: note: pointer points here 00 66 6f 6f 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 52 00 10 00 2c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 62 61 72 00 This corresponds to this line: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/da9aeda08c3ff710a0d47d61a079f5a905b0a10a/… > mx->mx_db.md_entries = NUMKEYS(fp); From the bug log I see that there is disagreement over the interpretation of UB. Language lawyering aside, this issue makes it difficult to use LMDB in environments where UBSAN is in use. I also worry about the potential for miscompiles if the compiler is using its own interpretation of UB, and optimizing based on the assumption that UB cannot happen. Is there any way to make LMDB pack its structures less aggressively, so that it will satisfy UBSAN's alignment expectations? Alternatively, there are ways to perform the accesses that make UBSAN happy, but they make the code uglier: https://godbolt.org/z/8EP6cW77s > The code in question is accessing an unsigned short on a 2 byte boundary. I.e., its alignment is correct. UBsan is incorrect here. I cannot speak for the UBSAN authors, but I believe the issue is that, since p->x is equivalent to (*p).x, the dereference of p must be valid, even if x's alignment requirements are looser. To avoid this, you could write *(uint16_t*)((char*)p + offsetof(S, x)), since this avoids actually dereferencing p. But this is obviously much less readable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs January 2025