[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?

To: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org>
Subject: Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
From: "Allan E. Johannesen" <aej@WPI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:58:22 -0500
Cc: Dieter Kluenter <dieter@dkluenter.de>, Philip Guenther <guenther+ldapsoft@sendmail.com>, openldap-software@openldap.org
In-reply-to: <BB0410A5-94D8-4F7A-B96D-6E49D8EE050D@OpenLDAP.org>
References: <18291.45991.959589.513755@CCC5.WPI.EDU> <87y7bg2i11.fsf@magenta.l4b.de> <Pine.BSO.4.64.0712271049160.9898@vanye.mho.net> <BB0410A5-94D8-4F7A-B96D-6E49D8EE050D@OpenLDAP.org>

>>>>> "kurt" == Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@openldap.org> writes:

kurt> IMO, the bug is in ldapsearch(1).

The bug was discovered in a program, not ldapsearch, and wouldn't have been
noticed other than it reliably terminating the connection to the server, rather
than letting the program continue.

The ldap_search_s() returned LDAP_SUCCESS and the ldap_first_entry was where
the assert discovered the closed connection.

So, if this is only a bug in ldapsearch, all the programs that call ldap_search
will need to not only check for LDAP_SUCCESS, but also for the LDAP * structure
being closed.

References:
- OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
  - From: "Allan E. Johannesen" <aej@WPI.EDU>
- Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
  - From: "Dieter Kluenter" <dieter@dkluenter.de>
- Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
  - From: Philip Guenther <guenther+ldapsoft@sendmail.com>
- Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
  - From: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
Next by Date: Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.7 Bug?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread