https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6740
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |TEST
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--- Comment #11 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Commits:
• bc9a9286
by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-04-22T14:49:10+00:00
ITS#6740 - Always enable rewrite
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8575
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|TEST |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |2.4.50
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9098
--- Comment #16 from maxime.besson(a)worteks.com <maxime.besson(a)worteks.com> ---
The issues started appearing because one of the ldap-meta backends tended to
become unreachable (through a site to site VPN) during the night.
In the log I just attached, you will see that a bunch of backends become
unreachable at the same time, which, from what I could gather, comes from
temporary routing issues on the OpenLDAP side.
One of my log traces however shows a crash (same stack trace again):
Jan 10 13:51:29 slapd.service: Main process exited, code=killed, status=6/ABRT
happening 10 seconds after a retry, instead of immediately after it
Jan 10 13:51:19 slapd[1409]: conn=62130 op=1 meta_back_retry[7]:
meta_back_single_dobind=52
And no other backends had connectivity issues at the time.
In all of these cases, the local NIC was still online but the network issues
were occuring somewhere else (router, VPN gateway...)
One important, related information from my original report is that we had no
crashing issues before we set up backend timeouts (but of course, when a
backend went down and no timeouts were in place, searches became completely
unresponsive and ended up saturating all available openldap threads)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9098
--- Comment #15 from nivanova(a)symas.com <nivanova(a)symas.com> ---
(In reply to maxime.besson(a)worteks.com from comment #13)
> Created attachment 713 [details]
> syslog traces a minute before an assert crash in 2.4.47
>
Thank you! At this point I think the anonymised version will be enough, but
we'll get in touch if for some reason we need the real logs. What we are
interested in is what is happening to the particular connection in the seconds
leading up to the accident, for example was meta trying to re-bind it, were
there any errors logged that involved it, etc, and database information is not
relevant to that anyway. It would be helpful to know, if you can clarify
without revealing sensitive information, what does network interruption mean
exactly in this case - e. g the remote targets become unreachable, but the
network interface on the machine running the front meta is operational?
Best Regards,
Nadya
Nadezhda Ivanova
Software Developer @ Symas Corp.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9098
--- Comment #13 from maxime.besson(a)worteks.com <maxime.besson(a)worteks.com> ---
Created attachment 713
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=713&action=edit
syslog traces a minute before an assert crash in 2.4.47
I do not have the syslog traces for that backtrace I sent earlier, however I do
have a backtrace and syslogs for a 2.4.47 crash. You'll find it looks very
similar to 2.4.48. I'm attaching these, but since they come from a security
sensitive environment I will have to anonymize them, hopefully there will be
enough information. If you need the full logs and core dumps, let me know how
we can proceed administratively speaking. Because I'm pretty sure this will
have to involve an NDA in some form.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9098
--- Comment #12 from nivanova(a)symas.com <nivanova(a)symas.com> ---
We are looking into this issue and are trying to reproduce it. In the mean time
- are there any logs from immediately before the crash (preferably from the
same crash that generated the back traces you provided), that you can share
with us?
Best Regards,
Nadya
Nadezhda Ivanova
Software Developer @ Symas Corp.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9231
Bug ID: 9231
Summary: LDAP_USE_NON_BLOCKING_TLS not defined in tls_o.c
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
81588880852e83e094fea5c0b3dc7c75cf39112c (ITS#8980) added code in tls_o.c
that's conditional on LDAP_USE_NON_BLOCKING_TLS. However, it's only defined in
tls2.c, not in any common header.
I suspect that patch might have been developed with -DLDAP_USE_NON_BLOCKING_TLS
added on the command line.
I further suspect that this addition might not even be needed at all, after
fixing ITS#8650.
To do:
- test async connect behaviour before/after ITS#8980 (confirm the bug and fix)
- determine whether the added code is still needed, either delete it or move
the #define to a header so it's actually effective
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8614
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Ryan Tandy from comment #5)
> We should keep the ability to specify the threads library by
> --with-threads=<impl>, and only remove the --without-threads option.
>
> We're still going to ship some libldap.so -> libldap_r.so symlinks in order
> to avoid breaking everyone's Makefiles, correct?
Yep to both.
We'll delete back-shell/back-perl from the 2.5 release tree specifically, no
point in shipping them, but leave them in master for reference.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8614
--- Comment #5 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> ---
We should keep the ability to specify the threads library by
--with-threads=<impl>, and only remove the --without-threads option.
We're still going to ship some libldap.so -> libldap_r.so symlinks in order to
avoid breaking everyone's Makefiles, correct?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8614
--- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Ryan Tandy from comment #3)
> Since quite a while slapd doesn't compile at all without threads
Discussed with Howard.
For 2.5: No more libldap, remove the --with-threads=XX switch to configure,
remove back-perl, remove back-shell
For libldap: Just stop building it (keep it in source tree). Same with
back-perl, back-shell.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8614
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also|https://bugs.openldap.org/s |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
|how_bug.cgi?id=5333 |how_bug.cgi?id=5533
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5533
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=8614
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5333
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also|https://bugs.openldap.org/s |
|how_bug.cgi?id=8614 |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8614
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=5333
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> ---
Since quite a while slapd doesn't compile at all without threads; nor do
liblmdb, syncprov, etc. At this point we should probably just reject
configuring slapd without threading, and maybe talk about dropping the
non-thread-safe backends (shell and perl IIRC). BDB is gone for 2.5 and LMDB
doesn't support a non-threaded build AFAIK.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5333
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=8614
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7821
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8787
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9160
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8730
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8675
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8009
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|has_patch, OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6301
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5540
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9058
Ryan Tandy <ryan(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.