https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959
Issue ID: 9959
Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor
for identification
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is
impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're
at it, might also expose the current bound identity there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10266
Issue ID: 10266
Summary: Adopt broader RFC4511 NoD interpretation on lloadd's
client side
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Server side, lloadd has long implemented a broad interpretation of NoD
unsolicited response handling: when the message is issued, no new requests are
accepted on the session however the client and server are both free to keep the
session open if there are any operations that have not resolved yet. The server
is still expected to close the connection as soon as no operations are still
pending.
This seems to interoperate with known clients. Those that want to will close
the session immediately, unaware of this possibility, those that also want to
interpret RFC 4511 this way can choose to wait for existing operations to
resolve.
This ticket is to track the lloadd's implementation of the client side of this
- when receiving a NoD message, we don't close the connection
immediately+unconditionally either but are willing to wait.
Related functionality:
- if connection was a bind connection processing a multi-stage SASL bind, the
bind should fail if/when the client attempts to progress it
- clients assigned to this connection through coherence at least 'connection'
are also marked closing
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9640
Issue ID: 9640
Summary: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm using LDAP write operations with MOD_INCREMENT with pre-read-control for
uidNumber/gidNumber generation.
I'd like to limit write access to an Integer attribute "nextID" to
MOD_INCREMENT, ideally even restricting the de-/increment value.
(Uniqueness is achieved with slapo-unique anyway but still I'd like to avoid
users messing with this attribute).
IMHO the ideal solution would be a new privilege "i".
Example for limiting write access to increment by one and grant read access for
using read control:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=1
by group=... =ri
Example for decrementing by two without read:
access to
attrs=nextID
val=-2
by group=... =i
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909
Issue ID: 9909
Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
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* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is
never released on shutdown.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10026
Issue ID: 10026
Summary: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not
managed properly)
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Take MPR plain syncrepl with 3+ providers.
When a provider's own syncrepl session transitions to persist and a it starts a
new parallel session towards another host, that session always has to start as
a refresh. If that refresh serves entries to us, our handling of si_dirty is
not consistent:
- if the existing persist session serves some of these entries to us, we can
"forget" to pass the others to a newly connected consumer
- same if the refresh is abandoned and we start refreshing from a different
provider that might be behind what we were being served (again our consumers
could suffer)
- if we restart, si_dirty is forgotten and our consumers suffer even worse
We might need to be told (at the beginning of the refresh?) what the end state
we're going for is, so we can keep si_dirty on until then. And somehow persist
that knowledge in the DB...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10108
Issue ID: 10108
Summary: "mdb_dump -a" does not dump the main database
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.29
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: tuukka.pensala(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
In mdb_dump.c we have these instructions:
/* -a: dump main DB and all subDBs
* -s: dump only the named subDB
* -n: use NOSUBDIR flag on env_open
* -p: use printable characters
* -f: write to file instead of stdout
* -V: print version and exit
* (default) dump only the main DB
*/
However, contrary to the description, the option -a does not dump the main DB.
With argument -a "dumpit(..)" is called for the named databases, but not for
the unnamed one.
With the current behavior, if the data store contains subDBs and has user-added
data in the main DB, there seems to be no way to dump all of it at once using
mdb_dump.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9388
Issue ID: 9388
Summary: mdb_stat for DupSort DBI shows incorrect data
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.26
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: AskAlexSharov(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
It doesn't include pages pages used for values.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10358
Issue ID: 10358
Summary: syncrepl can revert an entry's CSN
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: ---
Created attachment 1080
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1080&action=edit
Debug log of an instance of this happening
There is a sequence of operations which can force a MPR node to apply changes
out of order (essentially reverting an operation). Currently investigating
which part of the code that should have prevented this has let it slip.
A sample log showing how this happened is attached.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
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.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9223
Bug ID: 9223
Summary: Add support for incremental backup
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
For LMDB 1.0, add support for incremental backups
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.