https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10121
Issue ID: 10121
Summary: cldap is not work in 2.6.0
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: client tools
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: 1010881517(a)qq.com
Target Milestone: ---
I can't use ldapsearch to query cldap:/// on 2.6.0, but it works fine on 2.4.0.
Do you have any instructions on cldap configuration?ldap and ldapi are normal.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981
--- Comment #3 from OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
Rather than extending the pwdPolicy objectclass, maybe the new mechanism added
in ITS#9343 could be used to override the default scheme if desided?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10111
Issue ID: 10111
Summary: dynlist crashes when using
member+memberOf@groupOfNames
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: overlays
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: uberthoth(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
slapd crashes if queried for the memberof field if dynlist has this config
(which is directly from the manpage for slapo-dynlist):
olcDynListAttrSet: groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames
There is an example repo with a docker-compose.yml to replicate this issue
here: https://github.com/joshuacox/openldap-overlay-dynlist
This may be a duplicate of this https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10091
though I did not see a seg fault.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10072
Issue ID: 10072
Summary: Querying for transaction memory use
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: tagwerk19.openldap(a)innerjoin.org
Target Milestone: ---
It would be useful to have a way to ask liblmdb how much "dirty memory" a
transaction is using, up to that point.
The goal is to be able to bundle writes into fewer transactions, making best
use of available memory and reducing total disc writes.
It is possible for an application to count the number of writes but this has
only a loose relation to the *actual* number of dirty pages flagged. The target
would be to write data up until the dirty memory gets to a threshold and then
commit.
I see that there's a:
txn->mt_dirty_room
and wonder if
MDB_IDL_UM_MAX - txn->mt_dirty_room
would give a count of that an "aware" application could make use of (an exact
count? or maybe a usable and sufficient indication?)
The need for this has been sharpened with the use of systemd service files that
cap the memory allowed for a process, for example:
MemoryHigh=512M
If the process reaches this limit and continues to write data, the system uses
swap.
See:
https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/baloo/-/merge_requests/148
Thank you for providing and supporting LMDB
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10122
Issue ID: 10122
Summary: Deletes are not replicated
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.4.46
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kinouchi-kazuhito(a)jsdnet.co.jp
Target Milestone: ---
Thank you for your help.
I am doing replication using syncrepl rehreshOnly mode.
All of a sudden, entry deletions are no longer reflected to the consumer.
Looking at the logs, nonpresent_callback is no longer printed in the consumer's
logs.
Further parsing the logs shows that after the last nonpresent_callback, the
provider and consumer are updating the same attribute on the same entry.
How should I recover?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959
Issue ID: 9959
Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor
for identification
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: lloadd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is
impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're
at it, might also expose the current bound identity there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10085
Issue ID: 10085
Summary: test029 can't pass with SLAPD_USE_SASL is set
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: test suite
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
Running make test with SLAPD_USE_SASL set will fail test029. There is even a
comment there that we can't support that functionality as-is when SASL binds
are configured. We should probably remove that part of the test or skip it
unconditionally for now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10045
Issue ID: 10045
Summary: back-config operations abandoned while waiting in
slap_pause_server() aren't committed to ldif
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
slap_pause_server() can take an unbounded time to process and it is possible
the operation is abandoned in the meantime (e.g. the connection is lost and the
loss is still noticed at this point). However the processing still goes ahead
and passed onto back-ldif - where it is discarded as abandoned already so we
can end up with an inconsistent view of our persistent configuration.
Checking op->o_abandon again after slap_pause_server() finishes might be
enough.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10095
Issue ID: 10095
Summary: Race condition causing corruption of mutexes when
closing the database
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.30
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: peter(a)peterzhu.ca
Target Milestone: ---
We're running into a race condition across multiple processes causing the
corruption of mutexes when a process closes the database caused by the fix for
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9278 (commit
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/commit/f683ffdc81d0edb20437cb7…).
Here's the interleaving of two processes (p0 and p1) that can cause this
situation.
p0: Opens connection to database using mdb_env_create and mdb_env_open.
...some things happen in between...
p0: Begins closing the database using mdb_env_close:
p0: Calls mdb_env_close0:
p0: Acquires write lock on the file lock using mdb_env_excl_lock.
p0: Calls pthread_mutex_destroy on the mutexes.
SWITCH TO p1
p1: Begins opening the database using mdb_env_create. Then calls mdb_env_open,
in mdb_env_open:
p1: Calls mdb_env_setup_locks:
p1: Calls mdb_env_excl_lock, but it's unable to acquire a write file lock
due to p0 holding the write file lock. It waits on acquiring a read file lock.
SWITCH TO p0
p0: Calls close on the file descriptor which releases the write lock.
SWITCH TO p1
p1: Acquires the read file lock.
p1: Does NOT call pthread_mutex_init since it did not acquire a write file
lock.
...some things happen in between...
p1: Try to lock the mutex using pthread_mutex_lock. This call fails with a
EINVAL due to locking a destroyed mutex.
I'm not sure how to actually solve this problem. We're currently mitigating
this problem by reverting the commit linked above (so no mutexes get
destroyed).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7226
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |TEST
--- Comment #18 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
• 242d1e6d
by OndÅ™ej KuznÃk at 2023-08-21T12:19:16+01:00
ITS#7226 Make olcAuditlogFile SINGLE-VALUE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.