[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5443) Multiple identical attibutes break syncrepl process fatally?
> We use openldap as mail service directory with some 8 Mio objects on several
> For openldap 2.4.x we have to migrate from slurpd to syncrepl.
> We got a working syncrepl provider als slurpd consumer (slapadd -q, 36 hrs)
> So I try to get a blank DB up by syncrepl only (yes, it is not at all
> performant, but informative)
> The process kind of breaks after a couple of minutes and some 44.000 objects
> (8.000.000 expected). Tracing it on the consumer side (-d 16384), I see
> something like this after an entry:
> syncrepl_message_to_entry: rid=001 mods check (forwardto: value #4 provided more
> than once)
> Indeed, the entry to come has three "forwardto:" Attributes with the same value
> (and other forwardto-attributes, too). This makes no greate sense at the
> application level, but until now it has been perfectly OK for the directory, and
> the LDAP-API did not complain about the attribute modification, neither did the
It is a violation of RFC 4512, section 2.2, which OpenLDAP 2.4 conforms to.
> This leads to some questions and suggestions:
> - the provider does not log anything with -d 16384, no error, no nothing. Could
> it do some useful logging about successful and failing replication sessions?
What's -16384? Since OpenLDAP 2.3 you can use strings to identify each
log subsystem (16384 == 0x4000 == "sync").
The error occurs when the consumer tries to manipulate the data it
receives. The producer has nothing to do with it, since it assumes that
data contained in it already passed sanity checks when they were stored.
How incorrect data got stored into the producer is a totally different
business, and the producer-side replication process should not muck with it.
> - the consumer does not log anything that can explain, why the remaining objects
> are not read, either. A bit of warning/logging could help the hopeful admin,
A sync error occurred, which prevented sync'in from continuing. This
error is logged by the "sync" subsystem. As far as I understand from
reading the code, the error (at least, a replication error) should be
logged also by the "any" subsystem, which means that as soon as any
logging is enabled, you get a message logged.
> - why is one problematic object lethal for the whole rest of the objects, since
> future modifications keep to be incorporated? Is this lack of robustness more a
> bug or a feature?
If inconsistent data is received, synchronization is supposed to stop.
In fact, continuing may result in an inconsistent state. The fact that
the stop is caused by a real error, and the fact that fixing the error
allows synchronization to recover doesn't sound like lack of robustness
to me. It sounds more about wisdom.
> - are identical attributes really forbidden with LDAP?
RFC 4512, Section 2.2
> - what could one do, to prevent unskillful "editors" of the master node to kill
> the replication processes for the whole replication cluster? Besides adding a
> checking/filtering API layer, of course.
Slapd has sanity checks for this. Slapadd doesn't, since it is supposed
to be operated only with consistent data, as resulting from slapcat.
You might have slapadd'ed inconsistent data to the producer.
In the end, I don't see how this ITS involves a bug in synchronization
software. The fact your producer got corrupted by inconsistent data
might have been caused by a bug in the software, however your analysis
does not give a clear indication of how it happened. If it happened by
slapadd, then it's a known (and desired, and documented) limitation of
the software. Unless you can reproduce it, I'd consider this ITS closed.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172