openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
20961 discussions

Re: (ITS#5327) slapo-constraint seg faults on regex
by ando＠sys-net.it 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

michael(a)stroeder.com wrote: > Guess it's not that helpful: No problem, easy to reproduce (as much as easy to fix :) 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#5327) slapo-constraint seg faults on regex
by michael＠stroeder.com 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

Guess it's not that helpful: (gdb) bt full #0 0x0815903b in ldap_pvt_sasl_mutex_dispose () No symbol table info available. #1 0x0000002c in ?? () No symbol table info available. #2 0x00000000 in ?? () No symbol table info available. (gdb)

1 0

(ITS#5327) slapo-constraint seg faults on regex
by michael＠stroeder.com 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

Full_Name: Michael Ströder Version: HEAD OS: OpenSUSE Linux 10.3 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (83.124.61.186) slapo-constraint seg faults if slapd.conf contains this line: constraint_attribute gender regex ^[0129]?$ The very same config works with RE24 just fine.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5326) Add could re-build entry's DN using parent's DN and entry's RDN
by ando＠sys-net.it 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

ando(a)sys-net.it wrote: > I think it is reasonable to reconstruct an entry's DN by using the parent's DN > and the entry's RDN. The rationale consists in ensuring the tree naming is as > uniform as possible. I understand that unfortunately in slapadd this would require either to keep track of inserted DNs, or to issue quite a few be_entry_get(), possibly resulting in a sensible penalization. Perhaps it could be an option, relying on the fact that slapadd is basically intended to operate on "well-behaved" data? 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#5325) Build error: __lock_getlocker undefined symbol
by ando＠sys-net.it 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

[Please CC messages to the ITS] Tim Bishop wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:07:57AM +0100, Pierangelo Masarati wrote: >> tim(a)bishnet.net wrote: >> >>> For reference, it's because my libdb is built using --with-uniquename. >>> This means the function name is actually __lock_getlocker_4006. >>> >>> I didn't see this in the documentation. OpenLDAP should either correctly >>> handle this case, or document that it's not supported. >> I think using that option is a Bad Idea (TM); it is the Wrong Solution >> to the problem of having multiple coexisting versions of a library. In >> any case, adding support for that feature would be problematic and >> definitely prone to user (and developer) errors, since the value used to >> make names unique is not exposed in any header file, so it would have to >> be manually defined. There are tons of (sysadmin side) ways to make >> sure the right library is loaded, so I vote against supporting this >> feature. Of course, I'm fine about documenting that --with-uniquename >> is not supported. > > I notice lots of other functions have a mapping in the bdb header file > so you don't need to know the unique value. Is this issue occuring > because the __lock_getlocker function is not meant to be called by > external applications? The mapping depends on the version of Berkeley, so mapping names would require to know what the mapping is; but as far as I can see, it does not provide any means to expose it. Other mappings are basically needed to work around uneven cross-version naming issues in Berkeley, or for OpenLDAP internal purposes, like separating back-bdb and back-hdb names. As Hallvard pointed out, probably that function was not meant to be exposed, since it's not declared in Berkeley's headers, but unfortunately OpenLDAP code seems to need it. Of course, you can still manually CPPFLAGS=-D__lock_getlocker=__lock_getlocker_4006 to workaround your issue. 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#5326) Add could re-build entry's DN using parent's DN and entry's RDN
by ando＠sys-net.it 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

Full_Name: Pierangelo Masarati Version: irrelevant OS: irrelevant URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (81.72.89.40) Submitted by: ando I think it is reasonable to reconstruct an entry's DN by using the parent's DN and the entry's RDN. The rationale consists in ensuring the tree naming is as uniform as possible. p.

1 0

Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 14 Jan '08

14 Jan '08

Howard Chu writes: > The outcome of the original discussion, which Kurt again reminded me > of today, was that ldapmodify should quit its guessing games and just > accept valid LDIF input. All I see in the -devel discussion is about bugs in the parser. I see nothing about removing the default "add:"/"replace:" derived from "changetype:", though perhaps it's in the off-list discussion it refers to. > The description of the exceptions in the manpage seemed imply they > were there to accommodate slurpd users, who needed a mechanism for > applying failed updates to a target server. Now that all slurpd/replog > support has been dropped, there really is no more justification for > these exceptions. That's not my impression, nor my recollection of the -r option. The manpage lists some differences from ldif format - replog, and defaulting changetype, add/replace. But they do not seem related. Not in the old code either; removing replog code can be done cleanly and does not interfere with those defaults. BTW I was wrong about when -r was removed. Seems to have been in the middle of the 2.0 branch; I only checked the beginning. ldapmodify rev 1.97, May 2 2001 "Clean up some logic, based upon Novell patches". I see a small patch from Novell shortly before that, ITS#1075, about a bug in the -r option. The "patches" referred to means more I've missed, I guess. >> As far as I can tell Logschema doesn't support full LDIF modify though. >> reqMod is unordered, so one cannot make two modifications to the same >> attribute. E.g. "delete: foo" followed by "replace: foo". > > I suppose reqMod should be made ordered. My point about logschema is that > reqMod's syntax doesn't require separators/terminators or as many redundant > attribute references. > > attr:- foo > attr:+ bar > > is a far more efficient representation than > > delete: attr > attr: foo > - > add: attr > attr: bar > - Which is why I want the old 'replace:' default back... With a doc warning that one must use the verbose LDIF format if one wants to not worry about attribute names like "increment" or "changetype". > The logschema format is also easily grep-able without resorting to grep > windowing and other such hassles. And that was roughly the old ldapmodify format. See manpage umich ldap-3.3/doc/man/man1/ldapmodify.1. I wonder why we removed it. There are a few weird LDAP change requests that do not map to that format, e.g. add: cn cn: foo - add: cn cn: bar - but that could have been fixed simply by allowing a '-' line as in the current format. >> Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others >> do. > > This is really getting off topic, unless you're suggesting that we > spec this for a new version of LDIF. Not really, more the opposite - if we just relax some restrictions on the old format ldapmodify accepted before, that's fine. But otherwise, if we end up inventing a new way to parse ldifs rather than just accepting more of what the code accepted before, I think it'd be best to see what others do first. And if so we might as well go further. I don't suggest that as part of resolving this ITS, certainly. -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5325) Build error: __lock_getlocker undefined symbol
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 13 Jan '08

13 Jan '08

ando(a)sys-net.it writes: > (...) There are tons of (sysadmin side) ways to make > sure the right library is loaded, so I vote against supporting this > feature. Of course, I'm fine about documenting that --with-uniquename > is not supported. configure should in any case check for __lock_getlocker(), since it's not a documented Berkeley DB function. Note that their headers do not declare it, OpenLDAP back-bdb.h does. -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#5325) Build error: __lock_getlocker undefined symbol
by ando＠sys-net.it 12 Jan '08

12 Jan '08

tim(a)bishnet.net wrote: > For reference, it's because my libdb is built using --with-uniquename. > This means the function name is actually __lock_getlocker_4006. > > I didn't see this in the documentation. OpenLDAP should either correctly > handle this case, or document that it's not supported. I think using that option is a Bad Idea (TM); it is the Wrong Solution to the problem of having multiple coexisting versions of a library. In any case, adding support for that feature would be problematic and definitely prone to user (and developer) errors, since the value used to make names unique is not exposed in any header file, so it would have to be manually defined. There are tons of (sysadmin side) ways to make sure the right library is loaded, so I vote against supporting this feature. Of course, I'm fine about documenting that --with-uniquename is not supported. 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#5325) Build error: __lock_getlocker undefined symbol
by tim＠bishnet.net 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:30:42PM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > tim(a)bishnet.net wrote: > >Full_Name: Tim Bishop > >Version: 2.4.7 > >OS: Solaris 9 > >URL: > >Submission from: (NULL) (129.12.3.176) > > > > > >I'm having trouble building 2.4.7 against bdb 4.6.21. The build error is: > > > >Undefined first referenced > > symbol in file > >__lock_getlocker libbackends.a(bdbinit.o) > >ld: fatal: Symbol referencing errors. No output written to .libs/slapd > >collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > >make[2]: *** [slapd] Error 1 > > > >Is bdb 4.6.21 supported? > > Yes. > > It looks like either you're linking against the wrong version of libdb, or > something is odd in the way your libdb was built. There's no OpenLDAP > software bug here, this ITS will be closed. Use the -software mailing list > for questions about working with the source. For reference, it's because my libdb is built using --with-uniquename. This means the function name is actually __lock_getlocker_4006. I didn't see this in the documentation. OpenLDAP should either correctly handle this case, or document that it's not supported. Tim. -- Tim Bishop http://www.bishnet.net/tim/ PGP Key: 0x5AE7D984

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