openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20967 discussions

Re: (ITS#9033) Computer Object
by quanah＠symas.com 13 Jun '19

13 Jun '19

--On Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:43 PM +0000 jgbuenaventura(a)gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to add a computer/network device (windows, linux, routers) in > Openldap, but i cannot find a specific, schema/objectclass/attribute for > that. Any advice? Hello, The ITS system is for reporting bugs, not asking usage questions. Please use the openldap-technical(a)openldap.org mailing lists for questions such as those above (<https://www.openldap.org/lists/mm/listinfo/openldap-technical>). --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

(ITS#9033) Computer Object
by jgbuenaventura＠gmail.com 13 Jun '19

13 Jun '19

Full_Name: JP Buenaventura Version: 2.4.45 OS: Rhel 6 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (222.127.115.105) Hi, I am trying to add a computer/network device (windows, linux, routers) in Openldap, but i cannot find a specific, schema/objectclass/attribute for that. Any advice? Thanks! JP

1 0

Re: (ITS#9032) need to create custom attributes in openldap schema
by ryan＠nardis.ca 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

Hello Suresh, The ITS is for reporting bugs, not for usage questions. For support, please write to the openldap-technical(a)openldap.org mailing list. See https://www.openldap.org/support/ for more details. This ITS will be closed. Thank you, Ryan.

1 0

(ITS#9032) need to create custom attributes in openldap schema
by sureshd＠nihontechnology.com 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

Full_Name: Suresh Dhayalan Version: 1.2.2 OS: ubuntu 18.6 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (164.164.10.1) Dear sir, I need to create custom schema attributes, in my AWS cloud I am using ubuntu 18.6. I will create additional attributes to my project related apart from in build attributes, so kindly send me the steps to create my custom attributes. Regards, D Suresh

1 0

Re: (ITS#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by hyc＠symas.com 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:47 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >> >> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:37 PM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an >>>>>>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many >>>>>>>>>>> tangential problems. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary >>>>>>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing >>>>>>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe this is correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. >>>>>>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already >>>>>>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is >>>>>>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use >>>>>>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs >>>>>>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. >>>>> >>>>> They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are >>>>> Undefined Behavior. >>>> >>>> Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. >>> >>> The C standard does specify the behavior. It falls clearly in >>> Undefined Behavior. >> >> The fact a behavior is undefined does not make it illegal. > > A program with undefined behavior is, by definition, and illegal program. This is pure nonsense. You realize, don't you, that the C spec has no definition of threads? All multithreaded programs are using undefined behavior. And yet here we are, using threads for over 2 decades. The gcc/clang folks have their heads up their asses. They've deliberately misinterpreted the spec claiming undefined behaviors are forbidden, supposedly to enable essential optimizations. Most of which only apply to obscure corner cases in compiler benchmark suites, that nobody in the real world ever benefits from. -- -- 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#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by noloader＠gmail.com 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 3:47 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > > Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:37 PM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >> > >> Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an > >>>>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many > >>>>>>>>> tangential problems. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary > >>>>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing > >>>>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't believe this is correct. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. > >>>>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already > >>>>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is > >>>>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. > >>>>> > >>>>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use > >>>>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs > >>>>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. > >>>> > >>>> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. > >>> > >>> They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are > >>> Undefined Behavior. > >> > >> Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. > > > > The C standard does specify the behavior. It falls clearly in > > Undefined Behavior. > > The fact a behavior is undefined does not make it illegal. A program with undefined behavior is, by definition, and illegal program. > > And Appendix J.2, Undefined Behavior, says: > > > > Conversion between two pointer types produces a result > > that is incorrectly aligned (6.3.2.3). > > > > You are violating the C standard in macros like COPY_PGNO. Effectively > > you are casting a uint8_t array to an uint16_t*. You cannot do that > > because uint16_t* increases the alignment requirements. > > All internal fields of LMDB are (at least) 2-byte aligned, so these copies always > meet alignment requirements. No, they are not. Some of them are 1-byte aligned. UBsan tells you that. Others require 4-byte alignment. UBsan tells you that, too. Jeff

1 0

Re: (ITS#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by hyc＠symas.com 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:37 PM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >> >> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an >>>>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many >>>>>>>>> tangential problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary >>>>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing >>>>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe this is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? >>>>>> >>>>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. >>>>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already >>>>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is >>>>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. >>>>> >>>>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. >>>>> >>>>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use >>>>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs >>>>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. >>>>> >>>>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. >>>> >>>> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. >>> >>> They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are >>> Undefined Behavior. >> >> Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. > > The C standard does specify the behavior. It falls clearly in > Undefined Behavior. The fact a behavior is undefined does not make it illegal. > And Appendix J.2, Undefined Behavior, says: > > Conversion between two pointer types produces a result > that is incorrectly aligned (6.3.2.3). > > You are violating the C standard in macros like COPY_PGNO. Effectively > you are casting a uint8_t array to an uint16_t*. You cannot do that > because uint16_t* increases the alignment requirements. All internal fields of LMDB are (at least) 2-byte aligned, so these copies always meet alignment requirements. -- -- 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#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by noloader＠gmail.com 08 Jun '19

08 Jun '19

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:37 PM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > > Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >> > >> Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an > >>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many > >>>>>>> tangential problems. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary > >>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing > >>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't believe this is correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? > >>>> > >>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. > >>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already > >>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is > >>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. > >>> > >>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. > >>> > >>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use > >>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs > >>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. > >>> > >>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. > >> > >> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. > > > > They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are > > Undefined Behavior. > > Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. The C standard does specify the behavior. It falls clearly in Undefined Behavior. > It would be unreasonable to expect the standards body to exhaustively list all of the > possible behaviors on all of the possible hardware architectures that the language is > implemented for. Leaving it undefined in the spec only means they chose not to specify > a behavior. That means the actual behavior depends on the underlying machine. On the > x86 family the behavior is well defined. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the standard and unaligned accesses. You also seem to be conflating two different concepts. First, unaligned accesses, are undefined behavior. They are forbidden by the standard in 6.3.2.3 Pointers: 7. A pointer to an object type may be converted to a pointer to a different object type. If the resulting pointer is not correctly aligned for the referenced type, the behavior is undefined. And Appendix J.2, Undefined Behavior, says: Conversion between two pointer types produces a result that is incorrectly aligned (6.3.2.3). You are violating the C standard in macros like COPY_PGNO. Effectively you are casting a uint8_t array to an uint16_t*. You cannot do that because uint16_t* increases the alignment requirements. Tools like UBsan are telling you when you violate the rules. They specifically flagged COPY_PGNO as incurring undefined behavior. (Tools like UBsan will miss some UB, but that's a different error and not applicable to this discussion). You insistence on claiming the code is correct is befuddling. You are effectively saying the world is wrong, including the C standard, the compiler writers, other projects, the QA personnel testing the software and users like me. There's nothing special about me being wrong. I've had to acknowledged that often. However, I would take pause in claiming the C standard is wrong or the compiler writers, like GCC and LLVM devs, are wrong. That's pretty bold. Second, conflating concepts, is the difference between the C standard and processor capabilities. The C code has undefined behavior, and it does not matter what the processor is capable of. And it does not matter if the compiler decides to generate code that performs unaligned accesses. The compiler is free to do what it wants, even when it frustrates the user or makes the user envious. However, you cannot wrote code that uses unaligned objects even though the compiler may generate equivalent code. Jeff

1 0

Re: (ITS#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by hyc＠symas.com 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

Howard Chu wrote: > hyc(a)symas.com wrote: >> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an >>>>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many >>>>>>>>> tangential problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary >>>>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing >>>>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe this is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? >>>>>> >>>>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. >>>>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already >>>>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is >>>>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. >>>>> >>>>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. >>>>> >>>>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use >>>>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs >>>>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. >>>>> >>>>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. >>>> >>>> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. >>> >>> They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are >>> Undefined Behavior. >> >> Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. >> It would be unreasonable to expect the standards body to exhaustively list all of the >> possible behaviors on all of the possible hardware architectures that the language is >> implemented for. Leaving it undefined in the spec only means they chose not to specify >> a behavior. That means the actual behavior depends on the underlying machine. On the >> x86 family the behavior is well defined. > > Also note: Behaviors are left undefined when they are non-portable. But being non-portable > isn't illegal in C. The entire purpose of conditional compilation is to support non-portable > code. > Worth reading https://www.yodaiken.com/2018/12/31/undefined-behavior-and-the-purpose-of-c/ -- -- 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#8988) Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by hyc＠symas.com 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

hyc(a)symas.com wrote: > Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:08 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>> >>> Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:59 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> I encourage OpenLDAP to fix the undefined behavior. OpenLDAP is an >>>>>>>> important project, and the undefined behavior is causing too many >>>>>>>> tangential problems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Undefined behavior is not a bug, nor is it prohibited by the C spec. It is a necessary >>>>>>> part of the language for its intended use as a system programming language, writing >>>>>>> machine-specific programs. Anyone who says it is prohibited by the spec is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe this is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe you are thinking of implementation defined behavior? >>>>> >>>>> That would apply to how a particular compiler implementation treats some piece of code. >>>>> Whether a CPU supports unaligned access is machine-defined. Since our code is already >>>>> properly ifdef'd for the machines which do or don't support it, the fact that this is >>>>> "non-portable" is not an issue. >>>> >>>> The undefined behavior is causing OpenLDAP to fail testing. >>>> >>>> Worse, it is causing test failures in programs and libraries which use >>>> OpenLDAP. The OpenLDAP bugs have cross-pollinated into other programs >>>> and libraries. It is not simply contained or limited to OpenLDAP. >>>> >>>> That's a big problem for testing a QA folks. >>> >>> Then the tests are broken, because these are not bugs. >> >> They are absolutely OpenLDAP bugs. The unaligned accesses are >> Undefined Behavior. > > Simply because the C standard doesn't specify what the behavior is doesn't make it a bug. > It would be unreasonable to expect the standards body to exhaustively list all of the > possible behaviors on all of the possible hardware architectures that the language is > implemented for. Leaving it undefined in the spec only means they chose not to specify > a behavior. That means the actual behavior depends on the underlying machine. On the > x86 family the behavior is well defined. Also note: Behaviors are left undefined when they are non-portable. But being non-portable isn't illegal in C. The entire purpose of conditional compilation is to support non-portable code. -- -- 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

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