openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21003 discussions

[Issue 9940] New: slapadd segfault with -w on a subordinate database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9940 Issue ID: 9940 Summary: slapadd segfault with -w on a subordinate database Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dhawes(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- I've noticed sporadic segfaults when using slapadd with -w and an LDIF that contains entries on a subordinate database. Removing -w prevents the segfault. I finally had some time to look at this, and the results are odder than I expected. gdb bt: ===== Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. #0 0x000055c2096c1ffd in dnIsSuffix (dn=0x55c20b82c7b8, suffix=0x55c20b749520) at dn.c:1192 1192 if ( d > 1 && !DN_SEPARATOR( dn->bv_val[ d - 1 ] ) ) { (gdb) bt #0 0x000055c2096c1ffd in dnIsSuffix (dn=0x55c20b82c7b8, suffix=0x55c20b749520) at dn.c:1192 #1 0x000055c20974262e in glue_back_select (be=0x7fff683fc5a0, dn=0x55c20b82c7b8) at backglue.c:77 #2 0x000055c209745473 in glue_entry_release_rw (op=0x7fff683fc840, e=0x55c20b82c7a0, rw=0) at backglue.c:927 #3 0x000055c20974824d in overlay_entry_release_ov (op=0x7fff683fc840, e=0x55c20b82c7a0, rw=0, on=0x55c20b78d870) at backover.c:439 #4 0x000055c20974841f in over_entry_release_rw (op=0x7fff683fc840, e=0x55c20b82c7a0, rw=0) at backover.c:483 #5 0x000055c2096b5f94 in be_entry_release_rw (op=0x7fff683fc840, e=0x55c20b82c7a0, rw=0) at backend.c:958 #6 0x000055c209750a3d in slap_tool_update_ctxcsn (progname=0x55c209813b08 "slapadd", sid=18446744073709551615, bvtext=0x7fff683fca20) at slapcommon.c:1015 #7 0x000055c20974e108 in slapadd (argc=11, argv=0x7fff683fce68) at slapadd.c:502 #8 0x000055c209672e56 in main (argc=11, argv=0x7fff683fce68) at main.c:723 (gdb) print *dn $1 = {bv_len = 94291905136528, bv_val = 0x0} ===== dn->bv_val is NULL in this case. This dumb patch prevents the segfault, but does not fix the root issue: ===== --- openldap-2.5.13/servers/slapd/dn.c 2022-07-14 13:09:57.000000000 -0400 +++ openldap-2.5.13-mod/servers/slapd/dn.c 2022-10-25 21:14:13.068933734 -0400 @@ -1188,6 +1188,11 @@ return 0; } + /* dn is null */ + if (dn->bv_val == NULL) { + return 0; + } + /* no rdn separator or escaped rdn separator */ if ( d > 1 && !DN_SEPARATOR( dn->bv_val[ d - 1 ] ) ) { return 0; ===== When I started creating a minimal config for this issue, things got stranger. First, the config: ===== include /usr/local/openldap-2.5.13/etc/openldap/schema/core.schema database mdb suffix "ou=Subordinate,dc=vt,dc=edu" subordinate rootdn "cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu" directory /usr/local/openldap-2.5.13/var/openldap-data/subordinate maxsize 17179869184 index objectClass eq index uid,entryCSN,entryUUID eq database mdb suffix "dc=vt,dc=edu" rootdn "cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu" directory /usr/local/openldap-2.5.13/var/openldap-data/mdb maxsize 17179869184 index objectClass eq index uid,entryCSN,entryUUID eq ===== The LDIF: ===== dn: dc=vt,dc=edu objectClass: dcObject objectClass: organization o: Virginia Tech dc: vt structuralObjectClass: organization entryUUID: e906e392-731f-1034-98c4-c3e119ef52ff creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu createTimestamp: 20150409161915Z entryCSN: 20150409161915.467619Z#000000#000#000000 modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu modifyTimestamp: 20150409161915Z contextCSN: 20221025003300.622285Z#000000#000#000000 dn: ou=Subordinate,dc=vt,dc=edu objectClass: dcObject objectClass: organizationalUnit dc: vt ou: subordinate structuralObjectClass: organizationalUnit entryUUID: 40b0b450-7321-1034-9e54-3f41091a54c5 creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu createTimestamp: 20150409162852Z entryCSN: 20150409162852.039034Z#000000#000#000000 modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu modifyTimestamp: 20150409162852Z ===== Unfortunately, that config and LDIF did not result in a segfault, but I noticed that in my LDIFs that do, there is data after the subordinate entry, but that data is commented out. Adding a small comment did not affect things, but adding a large comment at the end of the LDIF did (4113 characters): ===== #000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000a ===== If you remove the 'a' from the end of that comment, there is no segfault. Note that this is sporadic, so I'm running in a loop to detect it: for i in {1..10}; do rm /usr/local/openldap-2.5.13/var/openldap-data/*/*.mdb; slapadd -q -w -b dc=vt,dc=edu -l ./minimal.ldif; done; This also seems to be the case with entries after the subordinate entry that have long attribute values (1027 characters, only tested with dc): ===== dn: ou=1,dc=vt,dc=edu objectClass: dcObject objectClass: organizationalUnit dc: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000a ou: 1 structuralObjectClass: organizationalUnit entryUUID: 40b0b450-7321-1034-9e54-3f41091a54c5 creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu createTimestamp: 20150409162852Z entryCSN: 20150409162852.039034Z#000000#000#000000 modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=vt,dc=edu modifyTimestamp: 20150409162852Z ===== Remove the 'a' from the end of dc, and no segfault. I hope that's enough information to recreate this issue. I'm still looking at it, but I haven't found the root cause yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9937] New: slapd buffer overflow in put_simple_filter()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9937 Issue ID: 9937 Summary: slapd buffer overflow in put_simple_filter() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kimjuhi96(a)snu.ac.kr Target Milestone: --- Running this results in heap buffer overflow. ./servers/slapd/slapd -T c -a= SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow (/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/programs/network/openldap-test/servers/slapd/slap d+0x726702) Shadow bytes around the buggy address: 0x0c047fffcb10: fa fa 00 07 fa fa 00 00 fa fa 03 fa fa fa 00 05 0x0c047fffcb20: fa fa 02 fa fa fa 02 fa fa fa 03 fa fa fa 07 fa 0x0c047fffcb30: fa fa 02 fa fa fa 03 fa fa fa 06 fa fa fa 00 03 0x0c047fffcb40: fa fa 00 06 fa fa 00 02 fa fa 00 01 fa fa 00 04 0x0c047fffcb50: fa fa 00 00 fa fa 00 fa fa fa 00 02 fa fa 02 fa =>0x0c047fffcb60: fa[fa]02 fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb70: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb80: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb90: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcba0: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcbb0: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes): Addressable: 00 Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Heap left redzone: fa Freed heap region: fd Stack left redzone: f1 Stack mid redzone: f2 Stack right redzone: f3 Stack after return: f5 Stack use after scope: f8 Global redzone: f9 Global init order: f6 Poisoned by user: f7 Container overflow: fc Array cookie: ac Intra object redzone: bb ASan internal: fe Left alloca redzone: ca Right alloca redzone: cb ==2262407==ABORTING Breakpoint 1, 0x00005555556ca320 in __asan_report_load1 () gdb-peda$ bt #0 0x00005555556ca320 in __asan_report_load1 () #1 0x0000555555c7a703 in put_simple_filter () #2 0x0000555555c7a309 in ldap_pvt_put_filter () #3 0x000055555588ca2b in str2filter_x () #4 0x000055555588ced4 in str2filter () #5 0x0000555555a31b61 in slap_tool_init () #6 0x0000555555a2e34d in slapcat () #7 0x0000555555708e1f in main () #8 0x00007ffff78cc083 in __libc_start_main (main=0x555555706ef0 <main>, argc=0x4, argv=0x7fffffffdfc8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffdfb8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #9 0x000055555561011e in _start () -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9935] New: buffer overflow in UTF8StringValidate
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9935 Issue ID: 9935 Summary: buffer overflow in UTF8StringValidate Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kimjuhi96(a)snu.ac.kr Target Milestone: --- I get a heap buffer overflow running this on the latest openldap on git. Built with CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" using clang 15. ./servers/slapd/slapd $(python2 -c 'print("-Td \x4c\x3d\xc2\x8c\xf0\xf0")') SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow (/home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/programs/network/openldap-ori/servers/slapd/slapd +0x3961ac) Shadow bytes around the buggy address: 0x0c047fffcb00: fa fa 00 06 fa fa 00 00 fa fa 00 07 fa fa 00 00 0x0c047fffcb10: fa fa 00 07 fa fa 00 00 fa fa 03 fa fa fa 00 05 0x0c047fffcb20: fa fa 02 fa fa fa 02 fa fa fa 03 fa fa fa 07 fa 0x0c047fffcb30: fa fa 02 fa fa fa 03 fa fa fa 06 fa fa fa 00 03 0x0c047fffcb40: fa fa 00 06 fa fa 00 02 fa fa 00 01 fa fa 00 04 =>0x0c047fffcb50: fa fa 00 00 fa fa 00 fa fa fa 00 02 fa fa[05]fa 0x0c047fffcb60: fa fa 00 00 fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb70: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb80: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcb90: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa 0x0c047fffcba0: fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes): Addressable: 00 Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Heap left redzone: fa Freed heap region: fd Stack left redzone: f1 Stack mid redzone: f2 Stack right redzone: f3 Stack after return: f5 Stack use after scope: f8 Global redzone: f9 Global init order: f6 Poisoned by user: f7 Container overflow: fc Array cookie: ac Intra object redzone: bb ASan internal: fe Left alloca redzone: ca Right alloca redzone: cb ==2202218==ABORTING Stopped reason: SIGABRT __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 50 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory. gdb-peda$ bt #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 #1 0x00007ffff78ca859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #2 0x00005555556eb04f in __sanitizer::Abort () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cpp:143 #3 0x00005555556e8aac in __sanitizer::Die () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cpp:58 #4 0x00005555556c5dda in __asan::ScopedInErrorReport::~ScopedInErrorReport (this=0x7fffffffc4d6, __in_chrg=<optimized out>) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:192 #5 0x00005555556c6461 in __asan::ReportGenericError (pc=<optimized out>, bp=0x7fffffffd140, sp=0x7fffffffd138, addr=0x602000025af5, is_write=is_write@entry=0x0, access_size=0x1, fatal=0x1, exp=<optimized out>) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:199 #6 0x00005555556c99d6 in __asan::ReportGenericError (pc=<optimized out>, bp=bp@entry=0x7fffffffd140, sp=sp@entry=0x7fffffffd138, addr=<optimized out>, is_write=is_write@entry=0x0, access_size=access_size@entry=0x1, exp=<optimized out>, fatal=0x1) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/../sanitizer_common/sanitizer_atomic_clang.h:74 #7 0x00005555556ca34c in __asan::__asan_report_load1 (addr=<optimized out>) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cpp:118 #8 0x00005555558ea1ad in UTF8StringValidate () #9 0x000055555581e5a7 in LDAPRDN_rewrite () #10 0x000055555581d059 in LDAPDN_rewrite () #11 0x0000555555820f7f in dnPrettyNormal () #12 0x0000555555a37d1d in slapdn () #13 0x000055555570901f in main () #14 0x00007ffff78cc083 in __libc_start_main (main=0x555555706ef0 <main>, argc=0x3, argv=0x7fffffffdfd8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffdfc8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #15 0x000055555561011e in _start () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:397 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9930] New: test050 deadlock on BSD OSes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9930 Issue ID: 9930 Summary: test050 deadlock on BSD OSes Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Initially reported to me directly as an issue with NetBSD 9.1, I was able to reproduce this with FreeBSD 13.1 as well. Investigation ongoing. Running test050 in a loop eventually results in a deadlock in one of the 4 slapd provider processes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 15

[Issue 9898] New: slapd-addel.c contains invalid struct initialization which does not compile on HP-UX aCC
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9898 Issue ID: 9898 Summary: slapd-addel.c contains invalid struct initialization which does not compile on HP-UX aCC Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: Other Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael.osipov(a)siemens.com Target Milestone: --- My compiler (cc: HP C/aC++ B3910B A.06.29 [Oct 18 2016]) gives me: /opt/aCC/bin/aCC -Ae -g -I../../include -I../../include -I/opt/ports/include -I/opt/ports/include -c -o slapd-addel.o slapd-addel.c "slapd-addel.c", line 68: error #2029: expected an expression LDIFRecord record = {}; ^ "slapd-addel.c", line 70: error #2029: expected an expression struct berval bv = {}; ^ This is invalid C code, it can be easily solved by using "{0}" and the code does compile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Issue 9892] New: LDAP_TXN_SPECIFY assumes cleanup responsibility for writes but never performs it
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9892 Issue ID: 9892 Summary: LDAP_TXN_SPECIFY assumes cleanup responsibility for writes but never performs it 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: --- When TXN extop is accepted and the client sends some write ops, the cleanup path is skipped within do_modify/do_add/... however the data is never actually freed when the transaction is being settled (regardless of whether it was committed successfully or aborted). Confirmed to happen with do_modify by tests/scripts/lloadd/test007-coherence, for others it's my assumption based on reading the code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9880] New: reqStart filter with trailing zeros is truncated, which breaks certain searches
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9880 Issue ID: 9880 Summary: reqStart filter with trailing zeros is truncated, which breaks certain searches Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.12 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: subbarao(a)computer.org Target Milestone: --- Note: ITS#9358 seems to address this very issue, but it doesn't seem to help this particular case. Certain range searches with reqStart on the changelog don't work as expected. For example: (!(reqStart<=20220707123456.000000Z)) The idea here is to grab all entries strictly greater than the timestamp. But slapd truncates zeros in this filter, rewriting it to: (!(reqStart<=20220707123456Z)) As a result, the reqStart=20220707123456.000000Z entry is the first match since it is greater than 20220707123456Z, which is not the desired behavior. I was able to reproduce this issue on 2.5.12 as follows: 1) Start the test043-delta-syncrepl test, let it run almost to the end so that it makes many changes, and then hit ^Z to suspend the script. I waited until one of the last occurrences of "Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes". 2) pkill -CONT -f slapd to restart slapd (but not the test script) 3) ldapsearch -x -h localhost:9011 -b cn=log objectclass=top | grep '^dn:.*.000000Z' Look for a change with all trailing zeros. It's not as rare as one might think, I saw at least one trailing-zeros change in two consecutive runs of the test script. I suppose you could also just create an entry with all trailing zeros in the accesslog :-) 4) Run a range search to only return changes after that change (I used -z 1 and -s one so that it would only give me one result): ldapsearch -x -z 1 -h localhost:9011 -b cn=log -s one '(!(reqStart<=20220708012121.000000Z))' If you see the same entry, then the problem is present. 5) Even if you can't have an accesslog entry with all trailing zeros, you can still do the above search verbatim and look at the slapd log file testrun/slapd.1.log: 62c7873f.145b4396 0x7fabf14c9700 conn=1011 op=1 SRCH base="cn=log" scope=1 deref =0 filter="(!(reqStart<=20220708012121Z))" The filter being rewritten in the server log seems to indicate that trailing zeros are being truncated somewhere. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9966] New: slapd crashes in pcache consistency_check()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9966 Issue ID: 9966 Summary: slapd crashes in pcache consistency_check() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: aweits(a)rit.edu Target Milestone: --- The pcache overlay (when run with multiple templates) crashes in the consistency checker. Cause appears to be that "expires" is not reset for the next iteration of the template loop. I can provide more details if necessary. Server does not crash with this in place: diff --git a/servers/slapd/overlays/pcache.c b/servers/slapd/overlays/pcache.c index 423c19641e72..7b9e2061f927 100644 --- a/servers/slapd/overlays/pcache.c +++ b/servers/slapd/overlays/pcache.c @@ -3628,6 +3628,8 @@ consistency_check( if ( rem ) free_query(query); } + expires = NULL; + /* handle refreshes that we skipped earlier */ if ( templ->ttr ) { ldap_pvt_thread_rdwr_rlock(&templ->t_rwlock); valgrind says: ==217138== Thread 13: ==217138== Invalid read of size 8 ==217138== at 0x63949EE: consistency_check (pcache.c:3604) ==217138== by 0x48A5DB9: ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (tpool.c:1053) ==217138== by 0x5016801: start_thread (in /usr/lib64/libc.so.6) ==217138== by 0x4FB6313: clone (in /usr/lib64/libc.so.6) ==217138== Address 0x6d14c60 is 160 bytes inside a block of size 240 free'd ==217138== at 0x48470E4: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:872) ==217138== by 0x63949DE: UnknownInlinedFun (pcache.c:1548) ==217138== by 0x63949DE: consistency_check (pcache.c:3628) ==217138== by 0x48A5DB9: ldap_int_thread_pool_wrapper (tpool.c:1053) ==217138== by 0x5016801: start_thread (in /usr/lib64/libc.so.6) ==217138== by 0x4FB6313: clone (in /usr/lib64/libc.so.6) ==217138== Block was alloc'd at ==217138== at 0x484486F: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:381) ==217138== by 0x48C8804: ber_memalloc_x (memory.c:228) ==217138== by 0x4598C2: ch_malloc (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x6391276: add_query (pcache.c:1562) ==217138== by 0x639ADEF: pcache_op_cleanup (pcache.c:2376) ==217138== by 0x52498D: ??? (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x452C32: ??? (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x4536BC: slap_send_ldap_result (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x4CF9EA: ldap_back_search (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x4BD022: overlay_op_walk (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x4BD1A0: ??? (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== by 0x4415D8: fe_op_search (in /usr/local/libexec/slapd) ==217138== Happy Holidays! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9960] New: Problem with accesslog overlay along with dynlist overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9960 Issue ID: 9960 Summary: Problem with accesslog overlay along with dynlist overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: carsten.jaeckel(a)tu-dortmund.de Target Milestone: --- As long as only the accesslog overlay is used the logging works as expected. Successfully logged search access: ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com -W -b dc=users,dc=example,dc=com cn=user1 mail Result of ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=log -W -b cn=log objectclass=*: ###################################### ... # 20221212145029.000000Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000000Z,cn=log objectClass: auditBind reqStart: 20221212145029.000000Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000001Z reqType: bind reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: reqDN: cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqVersion: 3 reqMethod: SIMPLE # 20221212145029.000002Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000002Z,cn=log objectClass: auditSearch reqStart: 20221212145029.000002Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000003Z reqType: search reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqDN: dc=users,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqScope: sub reqDerefAliases: never reqAttrsOnly: FALSE reqFilter: (cn=user1) reqAttr: mail reqEntries: 1 reqTimeLimit: -1 reqSizeLimit: -1 # 20221212145029.000004Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212145029.000004Z,cn=log objectClass: auditObject reqStart: 20221212145029.000004Z reqEnd: 20221212145029.000005Z reqType: unbind reqSession: 1022 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com ###################################### After adding overlay dynlist the information in the accesslog database after the same search operation ldapsearch -H ldaps://ldap.example.com:636 -D cn=manager,dc=example,dc=com -W -b dc=users,dc=example,dc=com cn=user1 mail is as follows: ###################################### ... # 20221212144859.000000Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000000Z,cn=log objectClass: auditBind reqStart: 20221212144859.000000Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000001Z reqType: bind reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: reqDN: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqVersion: 3 reqMethod: SIMPLE # 20221212144859.000002Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000002Z,cn=log objectClass: auditSearch reqStart: 20221212144859.000002Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000003Z reqType: search reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com reqDN: dc=users,dc=example,dc=com reqResult: 0 reqScope: sub reqDerefAliases: never reqAttrsOnly: FALSE reqFilter: (objectClass=groupOfURLs) reqAttr: memberURL reqEntries: 0 reqTimeLimit: -1 reqSizeLimit: -1 # 20221212144859.000005Z, log dn: reqStart=20221212144859.000005Z,cn=log objectClass: auditObject reqStart: 20221212144859.000005Z reqEnd: 20221212144859.000006Z reqType: unbind reqSession: 1019 reqAuthzID: manager,dc=example,dc=com ###################################### Configuration: ###################################### dn: olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcMdbConfig olcDatabase: {1}mdb ... olcSuffix: dc=example,dc=com olcSyncUseSubentry: FALSE dn: olcOverlay={0}refint,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcRefintConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {0}refint olcRefintAttribute: member olcRefintAttribute: memberOf olcRefintNothing: cn=tgroup,dc=groups,dc=example,dc=com dn: olcOverlay={1}ppolicy,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcPPolicyConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {1}ppolicy olcPPolicyHashCleartext: TRUE dn: olcOverlay={2}dynlist,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcDynListConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {2}dynlist olcDynListAttrSet: {0}groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames dn: olcOverlay={3}lastbind,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcLastBindConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcOverlay: {3}lastbind olcLastBindPrecision: 86400 dn: olcOverlay={4}accesslog,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcAccessLogConfig objectClass: olcConfig objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: top olcAccessLogDB: cn=log olcOverlay: {4}accesslog olcAccessLogOld: (objectClass=inetOrgPerson) olcAccessLogOldAttr: description olcAccessLogOps: all olcAccessLogPurge: 01:00 00:15 ###################################### -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9929] New: slapo-dynlist unnecessary search for dynamic lists
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Feb '23

09 Feb '23

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9929 Issue ID: 9929 Summary: slapo-dynlist unnecessary search for dynamic lists Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.12 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- An extra initial search is performed by slapo-dynlist to make dynamic groups filterable. This search is not needed for dynamic lists, but is still occurring. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

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