doveadm-deduplicate deletes non-duplicates

[John Stoffel]

>>>>> "Aki" == Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at open-xchange.com> writes:

Will 2.3.20 be released ASAP with this fix?  

Aki> This has now been fixed in main with
Aki> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/2780f106e3b185981dd7aaf5cbf2e88daa2f7c64.patch

Aki> Aki

>> On 13/06/2022 10:43 gravitini <dovecot at gravitini.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Please consider as critical (data loss) and recommend a warning is 
>> issued for 2.3.19 users.
>> 
>> 
>> On 13/06/22 5:25 pm, Aki Tuomi wrote:
>> >> On 13/06/2022 02:09 gravitini <dovecot at gravitini.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>   
>> >> Replying to: https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/2022-May/124816.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Looking at the code (and tested via local build from source) it looks
>> >> like doveadm deduplicate in 2.3.19 can cause significant data loss.
>> >>
>> >> A 2022-02-11 commit removed key duplication resulting in undefined
>> >> behaviour which is often truncation of a mailbox to 67 entries.
>> >> (HASH_TABLE_MIN_SIZE)
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/320844f50cd669b602d30210e2e5216f65d2050f?diff=split#diff-5842cf9d4248dc515d80ebb45575341b7d76832f979a8ac5f602784cb5b03f2cL121
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/src/doveadm/doveadm-mail-deduplicate.c
>> >> b/src/doveadm/doveadm-mail-deduplicate.c
>> >>
>> >> index caec758112..2152482876 100644
>> >> --- a/src/doveadm/doveadm-mail-deduplicate.c
>> >> +++ b/src/doveadm/doveadm-mail-deduplicate.c
>> >> @@ -63,8 +63,10 @@ cmd_deduplicate_box(struct doveadm_mail_cmd_context
>> >> *_ctx,
>> >>                   if (key != NULL && *key != '\0') {
>> >>                           if (hash_table_lookup(hash, key) != NULL)
>> >>                                   mail_expunge(mail);
>> >> -                       else
>> >> +                       else {
>> >> +                               key = p_strdup(pool, key);
>> >>                                   hash_table_insert(hash, key,
>> >> POINTER_CAST(1));
>> >> +                       }
>> >>                   }
>> >>           }
>> > Thank you both for the report, we'll look into this!
>> >
>> > Aki