Bug 6668 - Delete request of attribute cause S4 lock up
Summary: Delete request of attribute cause S4 lock up
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Samba 4.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: AD: LDB/DSDB/SAMDB (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Linux
: P3 critical (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrew Bartlett
QA Contact: Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 6600
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-08-27 17:19 UTC by Matthieu Patou
Modified: 2009-09-07 02:51 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Tcpdump trace (14.59 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-08-27 17:20 UTC, Matthieu Patou
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matthieu Patou 2009-08-27 17:19:19 UTC
If the LDAP request specify which value shoud be delete either for a mono or a multivaluated attribute, then samba is locked and print something like this in the log file

ldb: ERROR: dn CN=Administrator, CN=Users, DC=samba4,DC=org not found in @INDEX:MAIL:TEST@TEST.COM
dn: @INDEX:MAIL:TEST@TEST.COM
@IDX: CN=Administrator,CN=Users,DC=samba4,DC=org

Where:
* CN=Administrator, CN=Users, DC=samba4,DC=org is the object modified
* MAIL is the attribute modified
* TEST@TEST.COM is the remove value specified.

How to reproduce:
with ldap browser editor 2.8.2, create an attribute mail (type String) with whatever value. The right click on the mail attribute and select delete attribute, choose "selected value" and click delete and see samba blocked.

Deleting all the value of one attribute is OK.

The attached trace show behavior:

* frame 7 when deleting one value of a multivalued attribute (proxyAddresses)
* frame 37 when deleting all values of a mutivalued attribute (proxyAddresses)
* frame 49 when deleting one value of a single valued attribute (mail)
Comment 1 Matthieu Patou 2009-08-27 17:20:11 UTC
Created attachment 4603 [details]
Tcpdump trace
Comment 2 Andrew Bartlett 2009-08-27 17:24:32 UTC
This is a very interesting bug!
Comment 3 Andrew Bartlett 2009-09-07 02:51:33 UTC
Fixed by e2403f1314a28722f0fb21f6682320b2e9935d - a further fix to the underling issue still in progress.