RE: (ITS#3568) Failed Assertion in io.c

[Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]

At 01:17 PM 2/24/2005, Bill.Stephens@pbsg.com wrote:
>I was able to reproduce the problem using the 2.2.23 software.  I'm pretty
>new to this, how do I perform a strace/backtrace of the login process to see
>who's calling the module?

http://www.openldap.org/faq/?file=59


>Thanks,
>
>Bill
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
>Sent: Thu 2/24/2005 11:15 AM
>To: bill.stephens@pbsg.com
>Cc: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
>Subject: Re: (ITS#3568) Failed Assertion in io.c
> 
>The fact that ber_write failed due to an assertion is, by itself,
>not indicative of a bug in OpenLDAP Software.  In fact, the
>assertion indicates that the caller inappropriately called
>ber_write with a NULL second argument.  It is not clear from
>your report which software is making the call to ber_write().
>A stack back trace would like be useful here.
>
>But before going further, I suggest attempt to duplicate this
>problem the latest version of OpenLDAP Software, e.g. 2.2.23,
>(as distributed by OpenLDAP Project).
>
>Kurt
>
>At 07:41 AM 2/24/2005, bill.stephens@pbsg.com wrote:
>>Full_Name: Bill Stephens
>>Version: 2-2.15
>>OS: Suse Linux 9.2
>>URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
>>Submission from: (NULL) (198.231.23.240)
>>
>>
>>I'm trying to authenticate my Linux box to our corporate ldap
>>implementation (ibm).  When I attempt to authenticate, I receive the
>>following error:
>>
>>login: io.c: 81: ber_write assertion `buf != ((void *)0)' failed.
>>
>>All my messages log shows is:
>>
>>Feb 23 16:56:21 peplul00955 login[8017]: pam_unix2: pam_sm_authenticate()
>>called
>>Feb 23 16:56:21 peplul00955 login[8017]: pam_unix2: username=[bstephen]
>>
>>
>>I'm running Suse 9.2, openldap2-client 2.2.15
>>
>>If I authenticate against a local test ldap, with only one entry,
>>everything works fine.  I've confirmed that I can ldapsearch my corporate
>>ldap, and successfully bind.  I've taken some ethereal traces, and my
>>bind, using my uid and password results in a success, but not much after
>>that.
>>
>>Any ideas where I should go from here?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Bill