hyc(a)symas.com wrote in ITS#8240:
> Our patch response was too hasty. There is no OpenLDAP bug here, the real
> issue is production binaries being built with asserts enabled instead of
> compiling with -DNDEBUG. That's an issue for packagers and distros to resolve.
> Closing this ITS, not an OpenLDAP bug.
Maybe I missed something. But this is the first time I've heard about -DNDEBUG
being mandatory when compiling binary packages for production use. Does it
have other effects?
And what are general rules for assert statements in OpenLDAP code?
In my own (Python) code assert statements are supposed to be only triggered if
something goes wrong *internally* (type issues etc.). If somebody manages to
trigger an assert statement with invalid input from "outside" I always
consider this to be a serious bug revealing insufficient error handling even
though e.g. web2ldap just logs the exception but won't crash. YMMV, but please
I also wonder whether there are more mandatory rules for building packages and
where I can find them.
Please don't get me wrong: My inquiry is in good faith to avoid unnecessary
ITS based on misunderstanding.
There have been some reports coming in to the ITS system that likely should
go into OpenLDAP 2.4.48/LMDB 0.9.23. These are:
ITS#8969 - Tweak to LMDB page splits (already committed to LMDB RE0.9)
ITS#8968 - ASYNC connect mode does not work on Solaris
ITS#8967 - back-mdb "unchecked" limits broken with particular search
scopes. Needs fix.
ITS#8957 - ASYNC TLS mode is broken
ITS#8963 - StartTLS failures with back-ldap due to bug in timeout
calculation. Needs fix.
ITS#8472 - only do index DB cleanup if DB is running (fix committed to
ITS#8952 - High CPU usage when idletime is < 4 (fix committed to master)
Any objections to me syncing these over into RE24?
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: