openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20967 discussions

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

07 Jun '19

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. -- -- 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 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

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. * https://stackoverflow.com/a/46790815/608639 * https://stackoverflow.com/a/46790813/608639 * https://stackoverflow.com/a/28895321/608639 * https://stackoverflow.com/a/51126453/608639 * https://stackoverflow.com/q/39908946/608639 ... I get that you think your project is fine. Many folks take that myopic view of the world. I call it the greedy model. Greedy models show up all over the place. For example, every website that requires a different account and different 16 character password. That's the greedy password model where a site think it is the only one someone visits. What baffles me is your insistence on polluting other program and library results. That's not your place to screw up testing for other programs and libraries. Jeff

1 0

(ITS#9031) Guide updates for 2.4
by quanah＠openldap.org 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

Full_Name: Quanah Gibson-Mount Version: 2.4.47 OS: N/A URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (47.208.128.44) The admin guide for delta-syncrepl needs updating. For example, it is missing the reqDN attribute being indexed. Additionally, it should be updated to reference mdb rather than hdb, since it is the preferred backend now in 2.4

1 0

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

07 Jun '19

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. -- -- 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#8962) Dead links in FAQ page "Where can I find listings of schema items?"
by quanah＠symas.com 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

--On Friday, June 07, 2019 8:53 AM +0200 Michael Str=C3=B6der=20 <michael(a)stroeder.com> wrote: > The FAQ contains the only documentation for set-based ACLs. > > So it's not an option to just shutdown FAQ-O-MATIC. Sure, any useful articles need to get moved to something. Just saying=20 overall, I think it's time for the existing FAQ to die. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Product Architect Symas Corporation Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: <http://www.symas.com>

1 0

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

07 Jun '19

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. Jeff

1 0

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

07 Jun '19

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. -- -- 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 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

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? Jeff

1 0

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

07 Jun '19

noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 7:39 PM Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote: >> >> --On Thursday, March 07, 2019 10:10 AM +0000 noloader(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Full_Name: JW >>> Version: 2.4.47 >>> OS: Linux (Fedora 29, x86_64, fully patched) >>> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ >>> Submission from: (NULL) (151.196.22.177) >>> >>> I added -fsanitize=undefined to CFLAGS. >> >> In this case, the compiler is the problem. > > I'm pretty sure the compiler is correct. > > The instrumentation does not produce false positives. It operates on > real data and simply does not produce false positives. > >> LMDB is 100% correct regarding >> alignment on all supported CPUs (which is most of them). The x86 family >> fully supports unaligned access, so LMDB makes use of this. > > It is not the processor; it is the C language. The C language does not allow it. That is incorrect. The C language allows it, but does not fully specify the behavior. On some machines unaligned accesses are allowed, on others it is not. On X86 family it is allowed, and we use it. > >> On other CPUs, >> which do not support unaligned access (e.g., SPARC), LMDB doesn't use them. > > The undefined behavior exists even after disabling the unaligned > accesses with custom patches. For example, there is still undefined > behavior even after changes like this: > > -#if defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64) > -#define MISALIGNED_OK 1 > -#else > #define ALIGNER (sizeof(size_t)-1) > -#endif > > We also fixed COPY_PGNO but the undefined behavior remained. > > The GCC Compile Farm (https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/machines/list/) > has three SPARC machines. SPARC does not tolerate unaligned accesses > well, especially due to the optimized 64-bit move instruction. We have already tested on SPARC and as we already noted above, we do not use unaligned accesses on SPARC. > OpenLDAP might consider testing on the SPARC machines. > > In the bigger picture, OpenLDAP is causing other program and library > testing to fail testing. When we test other programs and libraries > that depend upon OpenLDAP in a similar fashion, the undefined behavior > in OpenLDAP surfaces in the other program and libraries. It is making > a lot of extra work for folks who perform extra testing. > > 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. > Jeff > > > > -- -- 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#8962) Dead links in FAQ page "Where can I find listings of schema items?"
by michael＠stroeder.com 06 Jun '19

06 Jun '19

On 6/7/19 1:49 AM, quanah(a)symas.com wrote: > --On Friday, January 25, 2019 9:25 PM +0000 michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > >> All links herein are dead: >> https://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/220.html >> >> I'd suggest to remove this FAQ page completely. > > I tried, but unfortunatley the FAQ software breaks Apache when you try and > delete an answer. I think the better solution is just to remove the FAQ > software completely. The FAQ contains the only documentation for set-based ACLs. So it's not an option to just shutdown FAQ-O-MATIC. Ciao, Michael.

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