openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20967 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: (ITS#6727) ./scripts/test047-ldap: line 599: 26709 Segmentation fault
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Hopefully fixed with the latest ITS#6632/6720 commits. -- Hallvard

1 0

(ITS#6733) LDAP_MEMORY_DEBUG issues
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: 2.4.23 OS: URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) Submitted by: hallvard With LDAP_MEMORY_DEBUG, - ber_memcalloc_x does not check for overflow. - LBER_MEM_JUNK and the ber_int_mem_hdr initializer get compiler warnings. Fixing.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6632) Core dump in test030 when using back-ldap
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Easily found with valgrind --track-origins=yes. Fixed in rwm.c rev 1.134. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#6731) Scrambled error strings from back-ldif
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Howard Chu writes: > It is not an error in ldif_back_add() since rs->sr_text is only used by > send_ldap_result(). Its value upon return from ldif_back_add is irrelevant. Okay. I wondered if overlays could do something strange, but that does seem wrong. Then this bug only affected modify and modrdn. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#6620) ppolicy: pwdChangedTime/userPassword delete issue.
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Howard Chu writes: >h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote: >> Thanks. Applied a similar patch to cvs HEAD, after fixing a memory leak. >> >> Reproducing the bug: >> >> userPassword can exist without pwdChangedTime if you bypass >> ppolicy: Use slapadd to add an entry with userPassword, or add >> it to a subtree with no policy and then configure a policy. >> >> Then set up ppolicy and use ldapmodify to delete userPassword. > > In that case the correct fix is to skip the pwdChangedTime attribute > completely. Well, that's what this fix does in this particular code chunk: Don't try to delete pwdChangedTime if it isn't there. > The ppolicy spec says that entries without pwdChangedTime are not > subject to password expiration at all. Sounds like a different issue, but I don't see where it says that. What I did find is 8.2.7. Policy State Updates If the value of either pwdMaxAge or pwdMinAge is non-zero, the server updates the pwdChangedTime attribute on the entry to the current time. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#6660) paged result searches fail to deallocate memory until slapd shutdown
by quanah＠zimbra.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

--On December 2, 2010 6:45:45 PM +0000 doug.leavitt(a)oracle.com wrote: > At the end of my test threads 11-14 were not terminated. I > believe this may imply significant thread stack growth not 'leakage'. > > I will provide more info as I get it. I hope this helps in resolving > this ITS. Hi Doug, Thanks for the data point. We've definitely identified that it is not leakage, but problems with having multiple cores (> 2 or 3). In that scenario, the entry cache grows up until the point that every entry is present in the cache. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

1 0

Re: (ITS#6660) paged result searches fail to deallocate memory until slapd shutdown
by doug.leavitt＠oracle.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I may have another data point w.r.t this ITS. I tried replicating this ITS by: setting up a slapd based on test003-search config plus 100,000 additional entries similar to the other OpenLDAPperson test entries. running 20+ simultaneous instances of the test003 search tests I see a definite memory growth in the server. After the test run, according to libumem transaction logs there is about 600k lost memory in leaks (in my case). BUT the leaks are not lost cache entries or other obvious malloc/free errors. According to libumem the "leaks" are all 4k - 16k chunks of MMAP memory allocated to thread stacks associated with threads 11 - 14. I plan to investigate further. libumem may be reporting that there are no leaks, but instead that certain threads have significant thread stack growth under heavy activity. Alternately the threads may be terminating, resulting in loss of thread stack memory and later being restarted multiple times resulting in multiple thread stack leaks. (I am not sure yet which situation is the correct one). Either situation may produce an unaccounted for memory growth that may not be exposed via normal debugging malloc techniques because the memory loss does not seem to be heap related. At the end of my test threads 11-14 were not terminated. I believe this may imply significant thread stack growth not 'leakage'. I will provide more info as I get it. I hope this helps in resolving this ITS. Doug.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6620) ppolicy: pwdChangedTime/userPassword delete issue.
by hyc＠symas.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote: > Thanks. Applied a similar patch to cvs HEAD, after fixing a memory leak. > > Reproducing the bug: > > userPassword can exist without pwdChangedTime if you bypass > ppolicy: Use slapadd to add an entry with userPassword, or add > it to a subtree with no policy and then configure a policy. > > Then set up ppolicy and use ldapmodify to delete userPassword. > In that case the correct fix is to skip the pwdChangedTime attribute completely. The ppolicy spec says that entries without pwdChangedTime are not subject to password expiration at all. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#6731) Scrambled error strings from back-ldif
by hyc＠symas.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote: > Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth > Version: 2.4.23 > OS: > URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ > Submission from: (NULL) (193.157.203.245) > Submitted by: hallvard > > > apply_modify_to_entry() and ldif_back_add() can return with > rs->sr_text pointing into the stack, at textbuf[]. Fixing. > It is not an error in ldif_back_add() since rs->sr_text is only used by send_ldap_result(). Its value upon return from ldif_back_add is irrelevant. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#6727) ./scripts/test047-ldap: line 599: 26709 Segmentation fault
by michael＠stroeder.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I can still reproduce this pretty soon when running this test with several iterations. testrun/slapd.3.log ends with: connection_close: conn=1014 sd=9 =>ldap_back_conn_destroy: fetching conn 1014 =>ldap_back_conn_destroy: fetching conn 1014 =>ldap_back_conn_destroy: fetching conn 1014 conn=1014 fd=9 closed (connection lost) daemon: shutdown requested and initiated. slapd shutdown: waiting for 0 operations/tasks to finish lt-slapd shutdown: initiated lt-slapd destroy: freeing system resources. ldap_free_connection 1 1 ldap_send_unbind ber_flush2: 7 bytes to sd 13 ldap_free_connection: actually freed ldap_free_connection 1 1 ldap_send_unbind ber_flush2: 7 bytes to sd 11 ldap_free_connection: actually freed ldap_free_connection 1 1 ldap_send_unbind ber_flush2: 7 bytes to sd 12 ldap_free_connection: actually freed ldap_free_connection 1 1 ldap_send_unbind ber_flush2: 7 bytes to sd 10 ldap_free_connection: actually freed slapd stopped. lt-slapd: at.c:242: at_delete_names: Assertion `air != ((void *)0)' failed.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs