openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21001 discussions

Re: (ITS#5445) syncprov double-free bugfix.
by ando＠sys-net.it 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

rein(a)basefarm.no wrote: > The patch at the end adds missing parenthesis around a negated flags bit test in > syncprov.c. Without them the test always fails, the entry is never duplicated > and a double-free occur when the a_nvals is free'ed in the next statement if the > same entry is sent to more than one recipient simultaneously. Applied. Please test. Thanks, p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

1 0

Re: (ITS#5440) back-meta opens too many connections in case of error
by ando＠sys-net.it 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

ali.pouya(a)free.fr wrote: > I precise that The behaviour is not the same if the client binds with rootdn. I've committed a fix that removes dangling connections as the rootdn; I have been unable to reproduce the issue with regular users. Please provide more useful info in order to track the issue (slapd.conf, LDIF and requests). p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

1 0

Re: (ITS#5444) slapd seg. fault using mulitmirrored mode
by ando＠sys-net.it 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

mohel(a)web.de wrote: > The above log was generated using the test050 script just adding a line which > enters information also to a second server. Perhaps this test would also make > sense for further releases. Can you please post the modification to the script? p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

1 0

(ITS#5445) syncprov double-free bugfix.
by rein＠basefarm.no 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

Full_Name: Rein Tollevik Version: CVS head OS: linux and solaris URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (81.93.160.250) The patch at the end adds missing parenthesis around a negated flags bit test in syncprov.c. Without them the test always fails, the entry is never duplicated and a double-free occur when the a_nvals is free'ed in the next statement if the same entry is sent to more than one recipient simultaneously. Rein Tollevik Basefarm AS Index: OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/syncprov.c diff -u OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/syncprov.c:1.9 OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/syncprov.c:1.10 --- OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/syncprov.c:1.9 Sun Mar 23 14:06:03 2008 +++ OpenLDAP/servers/slapd/overlays/syncprov.c Mon Mar 31 15:43:31 2008 @@ -2385,7 +2385,7 @@ } if ( !ap ) { - if ( !rs->sr_flags & REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE ) { + if ( !(rs->sr_flags & REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE) ) { rs->sr_entry = entry_dup( rs->sr_entry ); rs->sr_flags |= REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE|REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED;

1 0

(ITS#5444) slapd seg. fault using mulitmirrored mode
by mohel＠web.de 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

Full_Name: Markus Version: 2.4.8 OS: SLES 10 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (212.185.43.218) When using multi master replication und start the tree from scratch, I'm able to ldapadd to one of the masters and all the stuff is replciated. But wenn afterwards ldapadd a new entry to one of the other servers the server crashes with the segmentation error. The following log outout is generated: ---------------------------------------------- conn=11 op=1 SEARCH RESULT tag=101 err=0 nentries=20 text= connection_get(19) connection_get(19): got connid=12 connection_read(19): checking for input on id=12 ber_get_next ber_get_next: tag 0x30 len 162 contents: ber_get_next conn=12 op=1 do_search ber_scanf fmt ({miiiib) ber: >>> dnPrettyNormal: <dc=example,dc=com> => ldap_bv2dn(dc=example,dc=com,0) <= ldap_bv2dn(dc=example,dc=com)=0 => ldap_dn2bv(272) <= ldap_dn2bv(dc=example,dc=com)=0 => ldap_dn2bv(272) <= ldap_dn2bv(dc=example,dc=com)=0 <<< dnPrettyNormal: <dc=example,dc=com>, <dc=example,dc=com> SRCH "dc=example,dc=com" 2 0 0 0 0 ber_scanf fmt (m) ber: filter: (objectClass=*) ber_scanf fmt ({M}}) ber: => get_ctrls ber_scanf fmt ({m) ber: ber_scanf fmt (m) ber: => get_ctrls: oid="1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.9.1.1" (noncritical) ber_scanf fmt ({i) ber: ber_scanf fmt (m) ber: ber_scanf fmt (b) ber: ber_scanf fmt (}) ber: <= get_ctrls: n=1 rc=0 err="" attrs: * + conn=12 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(objectClass=*)" conn=12 op=1 SRCH attr=* + => bdb_search bdb_dn2entry("dc=example,dc=com") search_candidates: base="dc=example,dc=com" (0x00000001) scope=2 => bdb_dn2idl("dc=example,dc=com") => bdb_equality_candidates (entryCSN) <= bdb_equality_candidates: (entryCSN) not indexed bdb_search_candidates: id=-1 first=1 last=20 bdb_search: 1 does not match filter bdb_search: 2 does not match filter bdb_search: 3 does not match filter bdb_search: 4 does not match filter bdb_search: 5 does not match filter bdb_search: 6 does not match filter bdb_search: 7 does not match filter bdb_search: 8 does not match filter bdb_search: 9 does not match filter bdb_search: 10 does not match filter bdb_search: 11 does not match filter bdb_search: 12 does not match filter bdb_search: 13 does not match filter bdb_search: 14 does not match filter bdb_search: 15 does not match filter bdb_search: 16 does not match filter bdb_search: 17 does not match filter bdb_search: 18 does not match filter bdb_search: 20 does not match filter send_ldap_result: conn=12 op=1 p=3 send_ldap_result: err=0 matched="" text="" => bdb_search bdb_dn2entry("dc=example,dc=com") search_candidates: base="dc=example,dc=com" (0x00000001) scope=2 => bdb_dn2idl("dc=example,dc=com") => bdb_presence_candidates (objectClass) bdb_search_candidates: id=-1 first=1 last=20 send_ldap_result: conn=12 op=1 p=3 send_ldap_result: err=0 matched="" text="" send_ldap_intermediate: err=0 oid=1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.9.1.4 len=368 send_ldap_response: msgid=2 tag=121 err=0 ber_flush2: 409 bytes to sd 19 send_ldap_result: conn=12 op=1 p=3 send_ldap_result: err=0 matched="" text="" slap_sl_malloc of 136867984 bytes failed, using ch_malloc ---------------------------------------------- It seems as the malloc requets of almost 130MB is simple to much. The above log was generated using the test050 script just adding a line which enters information also to a second server. Perhaps this test would also make sense for further releases.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5404) back-ldap fails intermittently with 80 Internal (implementation specific) error
by toby＠inf.ed.ac.uk 31 Mar '08

31 Mar '08

> Please test and report; > > servers/slapd/back-ldap/bind.c > new revision: 1.244; previous revision: 1.243 > > The patch applies straightforwardly to re23 only if the first chunk is > omitted. Been running for 3+ weeks now on various test machines with no recurrence of error, so I'd consider this resolved. Many thanks Toby

1 0

Re: (ITS#5442) slapd_rq not locked before use bugfix
by hyc＠symas.com 30 Mar '08

30 Mar '08

rein(a)tollevik.no wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: >> rein(a)basefarm.no wrote: >>> I was seeing random failures of the test050-syncrepl-multimaster test. One of >>> the failures was that it went into a tight loop traversing a circular runqueue >>> it had managed to create in slapd_rq.task_list. It seems as this was caused by >>> missing mutex locks around accesses to slapd_rq, which the patch uploaded to >>> ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/slapd_rq_lock.patch fixes. >>> >>> Before I applied this patch the test failed after being run a few times, with it >>> it has now passed 100 times and is still counting. >> locks in back-bdb/config.c should be pointless, as modifications to the >> configuration should only occur while all threads are paused. The rest >> makes sort of sense, but I'd leave it to Howard. Ignoring the ITS#5403 changes, I don't see anything here that isn't config-related, therefore it's all running single-threaded. Of the "relevant" changes in syncrepl.c, I note that three out of the four chunks of the patch are in code that is only run when using cn=config to delete a syncrepl configuration, and test050 never performs that operation. The remaining chunk only takes affect when adding syncrepl config, and again, slapd is single-threaded for that. I've also run test050 thru hundreds of iterations without any issue, without these patches. If there's a problem in test050, I don't believe it's in this code. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, 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#5442) slapd_rq not locked before use bugfix
by rein＠tollevik.no 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > rein(a)basefarm.no wrote: > >> I was seeing random failures of the test050-syncrepl-multimaster test. One of >> the failures was that it went into a tight loop traversing a circular runqueue >> it had managed to create in slapd_rq.task_list. It seems as this was caused by >> missing mutex locks around accesses to slapd_rq, which the patch uploaded to >> ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/slapd_rq_lock.patch fixes. >> >> Before I applied this patch the test failed after being run a few times, with it >> it has now passed 100 times and is still counting. > > locks in back-bdb/config.c should be pointless, as modifications to the > configuration should only occur while all threads are paused. The rest > makes sort of sense, but I'd leave it to Howard. That is probably true, it looks as if the places in config.c where locks really are required already had them. My patch adds locks everywhere slapd_rq was used without them, as I don't have enough knowledge of the code to know which functions guarranteed to only be used when threads are not running. I believe that the important patch is to syncrepl.c, but I found I it best to add locks everywhere just to be on the safe side. Looking at my copy of the patch it appears that another syncrepl.c patch which I was sure I had edited out has slipped through anyhow :-(. It is the first two modifications related to ldap_get_option, please disregard them in this bugreport. They have been reported in ITS#5403. Rein

1 0

Re: (ITS#5442) slapd_rq not locked before use bugfix
by ando＠sys-net.it 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

rein(a)basefarm.no wrote: > I was seeing random failures of the test050-syncrepl-multimaster test. One of > the failures was that it went into a tight loop traversing a circular runqueue > it had managed to create in slapd_rq.task_list. It seems as this was caused by > missing mutex locks around accesses to slapd_rq, which the patch uploaded to > ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/slapd_rq_lock.patch fixes. > > Before I applied this patch the test failed after being run a few times, with it > it has now passed 100 times and is still counting. locks in back-bdb/config.c should be pointless, as modifications to the configuration should only occur while all threads are paused. The rest makes sort of sense, but I'd leave it to Howard. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

1 0

Re: (ITS#5340) REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE bug in dynlist
by ando＠sys-net.it 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > > [about REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE] >> it is not >> clear what happens when a callback chain is interrupted by >> slap_null_cb() or similar, without getting to slap_send_search_entry(). >> This seems to indicate that callbacks should always provide a last >> resort means to release the resources they set; if read-only, by keeping >> track of what they sent; if modifiable, by freeing the contents of >> rs->sr_* if not NULL, setting it to NULL to prevent further cleanup. > > That sounds cumbersome, I hope slapd could take care of that somehow. Yes, it could: for example, by providing a helper like slap_entry2modifiable() that takes s SlapReply, checks the flags and does nothing if the entry is already modifiable, or copies it if not, releasing the original one if REP_ENTRY_MUSTRELEASE was set. > But I don't see how the be_release() code can work now. It sounds like > be->be_release() functions must check (how?) that the entry was created > by 'be', and otherwise pass it on to the next overlay/backend or > otherwise to entry_free(). Might involve mucking with op->o_bd and > sr_entry->e_private, I suppose. Except maybe I'm missing some existing > magic since slapd doesn't regularly crash... Yes, but that's trivial: e_private must be NULL for temporary entries, and copying the entry loses it (no one is supposed to muck with it expect the entry's creator). And the appropriate o_bd of a (non-modifiable) entry can be easily computed from the entry's DN. > be->be_release() does receive entries that were not created by 'be' or > at least not with be->be_fetch(), see openldap-devel thread 'slapd API' > in mar 2008. Might be a bug, but I'm not familiar with that code. >> Similarly, the existence of REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED is not totally clear: >> in principle as soon as REP_ENTRY_MODIFYABLE is set, it should imply >> REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED; the only difference in the semantics of the two >> is that REP_ENTRY_MODIFYABLE without REP_ENTRY_MUSTBEFREED implies that >> the callback that set the former will take care of freeing the entry; >> however, other callbacks may further modify it, so freeing temporary >> data should probably be left to the final handler. > > That's not my impression. MODIFIABLE would be that other modules than > the creator can modify the entry - but the creator might still be the > one who will free it. MUSTBEFREED is that the entry must be > entry_free()ed - the creator will not do it (or not do it unless that > flag is set). They clearly mean different things; my point is that as soon as an entry is modifiable it is not read-only and thus is a temporary, and thus will eventually need to be freed. So the point is who is actually going to free it. A copy might be created by an overlay after receiving a read-only entry, but the same overlay might not actually perform the copy if it receives the entry from another overlay that already copied it, or from a proxy backend. However, after the entry is copied the overlay will have no means to determined who actually created the copy. This might be an issue depending on the order cleanup handlers are called (didn't check what order they're called). My point is that temporary entries need to be freed at some point; who frees them should not be relevant... > So, if I'm getting this right... > > A backend must expect an entry to change or be freed if it sends the > entry with REP_ENTRY_<MUSTRELEASE, MUSTBEFREED or MODIFIABLE>, or if > it passes through a slap_callback.sc_response. Right now, a backend expects the entry to change if sent with MODIFIABLE; to be released if sent with MUSTBERELEASED; to be freed if sent with MUSTBEFREED. Modifications could occur to a MODIFIABLE entry when passing through a sc_callback(). Otherwise, if the entry is not MODIFIABLE, a copy will be created if the callback needs to modify the entry; after copying, the entry will be released if MUSTBERELEASED was set. When a copy is created, the callback that creates the copy must also clear the MUSTBERELEASED flag. Optionally, it may set the MUSTBEFREED flag if it doesn't intend to take care of cleaning the entry up after it's done. > back-ldif does not: it uses e_name/e_nname _after_ sending with with > REP_ENTRY_MODIFIABLE. That should be considered a bug. > Nor overlay retcode, it calls retcode_entry_response(,,,rs->sr_entry) > which makes pointers into sr_entry without checking if those flags are > set. If I'm getting that code correctly. I haven't tested. I havent' checked, but that might be a bug as well. > Others apparent problems (also not tested, I've just browsed the code): > > Overlays that obey and reset MUSTBEFREED or MUSTRELEASE, do not > necessarily clear or set MODIFIABLE when setting a new entry. > translucent does not, even though it is a careful one which > obeys both MUSTBEFREED and MUSTRELEASE. > > > I'm not sure when the code must clear the entry_related flags. > Some code which sets new entries seem to assume they are zero, > but some code which sets sr_entry=NULL does not clear the flags. > > There are sr_flags bits which are not about the entry, in particular > REP_MATCHED_MUSTBEFREED and REP_MATCHED_MUSTBEFREED. Looks like these > flags can get lost when but some code sets sr_flags = <something> > rather sr_flags |= <something> or sr_flags ~= ~<something>. It seems to me that we should provide "smart" handlers to deal with preparing sr_entry for modification, and to take care of cleaning things up as appropriate. Those helpers should then be consistently used in the code. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

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