Re: crash in syncprov.c at line 1858

[Karsten KÃnne <kuenne@rentec.com>]

On Thursday 10 January 2008 20:41:40 Howard Chu wrote:
> Karsten KÃnne wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > recently we ran into some problems with our OpenLDAP setup.
>
> What version?
>

We're still at 2.3.37 but I checked CVS and the assert was still in there.

> > The reason for the crash is apparently that the search from the consumer
> > went into the LDAP database and accessed AD and AD did what it usually
> > does and sent back bogus referrals which triggered the assert :-(.
> >
> > Now my question is, can we somehow avoid the replication search to travel
> > into the AD LDAP database and second, isn't the assert at that point
> > kinda bogus? It essentially tests for the same thing which the "if"
> > statement before already tested.
>
> The assert is probably bogus now, yes. That section of code was triggered
> so rarely that I needed to know if it happened at all, and why. (That
> assert was added November 2004. You're the first person to encounter it in
> more than 3 years.) Now we know - it happens when getting garbage back from
> AD...
>
> > I also noticed that in our cn=config tree for the BDB database (which is
> > what we actually use for the configuration) the order of overlays in the
> > provider is:
> >
> > {0}glue
> > {1}syncprov
> >
> > Would it make a difference if we change that?
>
> The answer to all questions of this nature is "try it and see."

I'll give it a shot. Logically it makes more sense to first provide the sync 
to the consumers and then glue the AD stuff together.


Karsten.
-- 
What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!