openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20960 discussions

(ITS#4776) slapo-chain(5) does not use the DN in the referral
by ando＠sys-net.it 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Full_Name: Pierangelo Masarati Version: HEAD,re23 OS: irrelevant URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (87.28.220.33) When chasing a referral, if the DN in the referral differs from the one in the original request slapo-chain(5) disregards it and uses the original request DN. This behavior disagrees with that of the client library. p.

1 0

(ITS#4774) Add network timeout option to ldapsearch
by lukeh＠padl.com 12 Dec '06

12 Dec '06

Full_Name: Luke Howard Version: HEAD OS: URL: http://www.padl.com/~lukeh/openldap-HEAD-nto.diff Submission from: (NULL) (203.13.32.80) A customer had requested we add an option to ldapsearch to allow a network timeout to be specified on the command line. A patch against HEAD is attached. I am aware that you can specify NETWORK_TIMEOUT in ldap.conf, and that free command line options are precious.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

<quote who="Howard Chu"> > ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: >> <quote who="hyc(a)symas.com"> >>> ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: >>>> Full_Name: Gavin Henry >>>> Version: 2.3.30 >>>> OS: FC6 >>>> URL: >>>> http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/admin-guide-monitoring.patch >>>> Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Monitoring section updated. Please review and provide feedback. >>> You use the term "subentries" in several places where I'm pretty sure >>> you mean "child entries"; "subentry" has a special meaning in >>> X.500/LDAP >>> that isn't relevant here. >> >> Sure, that's what I meant really ;-) >> >> I'll update it and send another patch. Or is there an easier way? > > Your original patch is already in CVS now. Just send a diff against the > CVS version. Thanks. > > -- > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc > OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/ >

1 0

Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
by hyc＠symas.com 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > <quote who="hyc(a)symas.com"> >> ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: >>> Full_Name: Gavin Henry >>> Version: 2.3.30 >>> OS: FC6 >>> URL: http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/admin-guide-monitoring.patch >>> Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Monitoring section updated. Please review and provide feedback. >> You use the term "subentries" in several places where I'm pretty sure >> you mean "child entries"; "subentry" has a special meaning in X.500/LDAP >> that isn't relevant here. > > Sure, that's what I meant really ;-) > > I'll update it and send another patch. Or is there an easier way? Your original patch is already in CVS now. Just send a diff against the CVS version. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

<quote who="hyc(a)symas.com"> > ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: >> Full_Name: Gavin Henry >> Version: 2.3.30 >> OS: FC6 >> URL: http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/admin-guide-monitoring.patch >> Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Monitoring section updated. Please review and provide feedback. > > You use the term "subentries" in several places where I'm pretty sure > you mean "child entries"; "subentry" has a special meaning in X.500/LDAP > that isn't relevant here. Sure, that's what I meant really ;-) I'll update it and send another patch. Or is there an easier way? Thanks. > > -- > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc > OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/ > > >

1 0

Re: (ITS#4770) monitoringslapd.sdf patch
by hyc＠symas.com 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > Full_Name: Gavin Henry > Version: 2.3.30 > OS: FC6 > URL: http://www.suretecsystems.com/our_docs/admin-guide-monitoring.patch > Submission from: (NULL) (212.159.59.85) > > > Hi all, > > Monitoring section updated. Please review and provide feedback. You use the term "subentries" in several places where I'm pretty sure you mean "child entries"; "subentry" has a special meaning in X.500/LDAP that isn't relevant here. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#4773) syncrepl segfault with incorrect config
by ando＠sys-net.it 10 Dec '06

10 Dec '06

Adrian Bridgett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 9, 2006 at 22:29:50 +0100 (+0100), Pierangelo Masarati wrote: > >> It is already fixed in HEAD; fixing it in re23 might be too >> difficult to consider, so, since the correct behavior is clearly >> documented, it might be not worth the effort. >> > > Fair enough, I'm sure I searched through the bugs for syncrepl items > and didn't see anything, but I guess it was fixed outside of a bug > report which would explain it. > Well, AFAIR it was not fixed as a consequence of a bug report; rather, HEAD code provides support to tag overlays as specific for the global or per-database level, if their use is not appropriate at all levels. slapo-syncprov in HEAD checks if it's being instantiated at the right level, otherwise it bails out. What actually happens if it's instantiated at the wrong level, namely what causes the core dump you reported, is not ficed at all, as it makes no longer sense. That's what I meant when I said that fixing this issue in re23 might not be worth: support for tagging overlays and to check if they're appropriately instantiated is interspersed in many code changes which may not be trivial to isolate. p.

1 0

Re: (ITS#4773) syncrepl segfault with incorrect config
by adrian＠smop.co.uk 10 Dec '06

10 Dec '06

On Sat, Dec 9, 2006 at 22:29:50 +0100 (+0100), Pierangelo Masarati wrote: > It is already fixed in HEAD; fixing it in re23 might be too > difficult to consider, so, since the correct behavior is clearly > documented, it might be not worth the effort. Fair enough, I'm sure I searched through the bugs for syncrepl items and didn't see anything, but I guess it was fixed outside of a bug report which would explain it. Many thanks, Adrian -- Adrian Bridgett - adrian(a)smop.co.uk GPG key available on public key servers

1 0

Re: (ITS#4773) syncrepl segfault with incorrect config
by ando＠sys-net.it 09 Dec '06

09 Dec '06

adrian(a)smop.co.uk wrote: > Trying to add or delete entries with syncrepl overlay I was getting segfaults. > > I couldn't check against my test box (remote location, no power), but eventually > came across: > http://www.mail-archive.com/openldap-software@openldap.org/msg06772.html > > This was in fact the problem I had too - I had specified syncrepl early on > rather than after the database definition. Moving syncrepl into the correct > place fixed it. > > Two hours wasted trying to figure out what was wrong, it would be good to have > some error message in this case :-) > It is already fixed in HEAD; fixing it in re23 might be too difficult to consider, so, since the correct behavior is clearly documented, it might be not worth the effort. p.

1 0

(ITS#4773) syncrepl segfault with incorrect config
by adrian＠smop.co.uk 08 Dec '06

08 Dec '06

Full_Name: Adrian Bridgett Version: 2.3.29 OS: Linux (Debian) URL: Submission from: (NULL) (81.5.177.202) Trying to add or delete entries with syncrepl overlay I was getting segfaults. I couldn't check against my test box (remote location, no power), but eventually came across: http://www.mail-archive.com/openldap-software@openldap.org/msg06772.html This was in fact the problem I had too - I had specified syncrepl early on rather than after the database definition. Moving syncrepl into the correct place fixed it. Two hours wasted trying to figure out what was wrong, it would be good to have some error message in this case :-) The stack traces I got out weren't terribly helpful to me (from a debug build of 2.3.27 running on Debian sarge all up to date): #0 0xa7f3501f in lutil_debug (debug=255, level=4, fmt=0x4 <Address 0x4 out of bounds>) at /home/autobuild/builds/openldap2.3/openldap-2.3.27/libraries/liblber/debug.c:63 #1 0x0807f71b in fe_op_modify () #2 0x0807f0f5 in fe_op_modify () (repeat of #2) #939 0x0807f0f5 in fe_op_modify () #940 0x0807f0f5 in fe_op_modify () #941 0x0807f0f5 in fe_op_modify () #942 0x080bf2fa in overlay_op_walk () #943 0x080bf3fd in overlay_op_walk () #944 0x080bf531 in overlay_op_walk () #945 0x0807e900 in do_modify () #946 0x0806960f in connection_done () #947 0xa7f46c28 in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x24) at /home/autobuild/builds/openldap2.3/openldap-2.3.27/libraries/libldap_r/tpool.c:478 #948 0xa7d51b63 in start_thread () from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 #949 0xa7ce018a in clone () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 #0 0x0806fca8 in fe_op_add () #1 0x0806ff58 in fe_op_add () (repeat of #1) #11378 0x0806ff58 in fe_op_add () #11379 0x080bf2fa in overlay_op_walk () #11380 0x080bf3fd in overlay_op_walk () #11381 0x080bf591 in overlay_op_walk () #11382 0x0806f7af in do_add () #11383 0x0806960f in connection_done () #11384 0xa7f23c28 in ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (xpool=0x26) at /home/autobuild/builds/openldap2.3/openldap-2.3.27/libraries/libldap_r/tpool.c:478 #11385 0xa7d2eb63 in start_thread () from /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 #11386 0xa7cbd18a in clone () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 Please shout if you want any more info. Thanks for a great product, Adrian

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