https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9847

--- Comment #8 from [email protected] ---
On 2022/05/14 16:02, [email protected] wrote:
> https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9847
> 
> --- Comment #6 from Howard Chu <[email protected]> ---
> > this sounds to me like an OS bug either in their kernel or their manpage.
> 
> "Their" meaning OpenBSD.
> 
> Since you submitted that patch to FreeBSD: did you verify that it is actually
> misbehaving on FreeBSD first? We've seen no bug reports about it and this
> support has been in the tree for a couple years already.
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the issue.

I didn't submit that to FreeBSD; they have had it since they added
OpenLDAP 2.5.x back in Sept 2021.

https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/net/openldap25-server?id=53fec214c68a54ed9307c26634668a620cdb7304

That port was committed by Xin Li who has comments forwarded in
ITS#6300 where kqueue was added so they presumably already knew about
this issue. If the majority of FreeBSD users are using the port (which
is quite likely) they would have been insulated from this and not
needed to report.

FreeBSD has more precise text in fork(2),

        The child process has its own copy of the parent's descriptors,
        except for descriptors returned by kqueue(2), which are not in-
        herited from the parent process.

Unsurprisingly DragonFlyBSD has the same patch in their port as FreeBSD.

NetBSD does not have a patch like this in pkgsrc but I found a fairly
recent list post suggests the child does not (at least as on 2021/09)
inherit the kqueue fd on fork - so it's unclear how things are working
in there, if indeed things *are* working there.
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2021/09/30/msg027833.html

It seems the slapd kqueue code was originally donated by Apple so it
would make sense that it would primarily target their implementation.
(Other things e.g. that it's broken with device nodes does suggest
that Apple's kqueue is a bit different to others).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.

Reply via email to