openldap-bugs October 2022

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
145 discussions

[Issue 9343] New: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Jul '26

21 Jul '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9343 Issue ID: 9343 Summary: Expand ppolicy policy configuration to allow URL filter Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Currently, ppolicy only supports a single global default policy, and past that any policies must be manually added to a given user entry if they are supposed to have something other than the default policy. Also, some sites want no default policy, and only a specific subset to have a policy applied to them. For both of these cases, it would be helpful if it were possible to configure a policy to apply to a set of users via a URL similar to the way we handle creating groups of users in dynlist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 20

[Issue 9667] New: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Jul '26

21 Jul '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9667 Issue ID: 9667 Summary: 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade documentation Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Need to document any upgrade information for going from 2.6 to 2.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Bug 9223] New: Add support for incremental backup
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9223 Bug ID: 9223 Summary: Add support for incremental backup Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For LMDB 1.0, add support for incremental backups -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 6

[Issue 9496] New: Some writes missing from database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9496 Issue ID: 9496 Summary: Some writes missing from database Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: igfoo(a)github.com Target Milestone: --- With the attached test program, some of my database writes appear not to actually be written to the database. For example, a run may look like this: $ ./run.sh All done. All finished 1802 test.txt foo_200 is missing bar_200 is missing foo_404 is missing bar_404 is missing foo_407 is missing bar_407 is missing The script that I am using to run the program is below. This is using mdb.master 52bc29ee2efccf09c650598635cd42a50b6ecffe on Linux, with an ext4 filesystem. Is this an LMDB bug, or is there a bug in my code? Thanks Ian #!/bin/sh set -e if ! [ -d lmdb ] then rm -rf lmdb git clone https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb.git INSTALL_DIR="`pwd`/inst" cd lmdb/libraries/liblmdb make install prefix="$INSTALL_DIR" cd ../../.. fi gcc -Wall -Werror -Iinst/include loop.c inst/lib/liblmdb.a -o loop -pthread rm -f test.db test.db-lock ./loop echo "All finished" mdb_dump -np test.db > test.txt wc -l test.txt for i in `seq 100 999` do if ! grep -q "foo_$i" test.txt then echo "foo_$i is missing" fi if ! grep -q "bar_$i" test.txt then echo "bar_$i is missing" fi done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 18

[Issue 9619] New: mdb_env_copy2 with MDB_CP_COMPACT in mdb.master3 produces corrupt mdb file
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9619 Issue ID: 9619 Summary: mdb_env_copy2 with MDB_CP_COMPACT in mdb.master3 produces corrupt mdb file Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.29 Hardware: All OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- When copying an LMDB database with mdb_env_copy2 with the MDB_CP_COMPACT with mdb.master3, the resulting mdb file seems to be corrupt and when using it in LMDB, I get segmentation faults. Copying without the compacting flag seems to work fine. I apologize, I know this is not a very good issue report, as I haven't had a chance to actually narrow this down to a more reproducible/isolated case, or look for how to patch. I thought I would report in case there are any ideas on what could cause this. The segmentation faults always seem to be memory write faults (as opposed to try fault on trying to read). Or perhaps the current backup/copying functionality is eventually going to be replaced by incremental backup/copying anyway (https://twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1315651814096875520). I'll try to update this if I get a chance to investigate more, but otherwise feel free to ignore/consider low-priority since the work around is easy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Bug 9224] New: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9224 Bug ID: 9224 Summary: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- In LMDB, add support for PREPARE/2-phase commits -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 5

[Issue 9769] New: Patch new feature batch get
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9769 Issue ID: 9769 Summary: Patch new feature batch get Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: rouzier(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 859 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=859&action=edit New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch mdb_cursor_get_batch retrieves a page worth of key/values. This is to reduce the number of function calls when doing a scan of the database. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 9291] New: Detection of corrupted database files
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9291 Issue ID: 9291 Summary: Detection of corrupted database files Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: markus(a)objectbox.io Target Milestone: --- Let's assume we have to deal with a corrupted database for whatever reason (e.g. broken hardware or file system). Current behavior seems to be mostly undefined, which is understandable as it's not known what is broken (e.g. there are no checksums). For example, I'm seeing a SIGBUS in mdb_page_touch because the cursor's top page (mp) is pointing to invalid memory (0x7f99cf004000) during a commit: mdb_page_touch mdb.c:2772 mdb_page_search mdb.c:6595 mdb_freelist_save mdb.c:3575 mdb_txn_commit mdb.c:4060 Cursor data at that point: mc_snum = 1, mc_top = 0; myki[0] = 0 A SIGBUS is troublesome as it crashes the process, and I wonder if there are other ways to detect such inconsistencies. If that be possible there could be user-specific handling in place. E.g. a user might start a new database file. This issue was reported by our users, which also provided DB files: https://github.com/objectbox/objectbox-java/issues/859 I did not find a lot of consistency checks besides MDB_PAGE_NOTFOUND and MDB_CORRUPTED. Also, I think there's no current way to thoroughly check a DB file (e.g. like fsck for the DB file)? My first idea other than checksums was to walk through the branch pages from the root and check if the referenced pages are within reasonable bounds. Also check the page content (e.g. nodes, flags). Additionally (optionally?), it should be possible to check that the key values are actually sorted. So, it boils down to 3 points in summary: 1.) If there no way to check the DB file for consistency yet(?), which approach do you think would make sense? There might be two modes; one for a through check through all data, and a quick check that does not take long and could be e.g. done when opening the DB. Goal is to avoid process crashes and let users handle the situation. 2.) In general, is it possible to add more consistency checks in regular DB operations? 3.) Could the the particular situation (for which I provided the stack trace) detected (e.g. is myki[0] = 0 legal here?) I'd be happy to provide a patch if you provide some direction where you want to take that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 28

[Issue 9539] New: ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(env, 0)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 30 Jun '26

30 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9539 Issue ID: 9539 Summary: ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(env, 0) Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.28 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: igfoo(a)github.com Target Milestone: --- On Windows, with the attached program and the commands below, I am getting ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(env, 0) on the latest 0.9.28 release. The program works as expected on mdb.master. git clone https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb.git cd lmdb git reset --hard LMDB_0.9.28 cd .. call "c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\2019\Enterprise\VC\Auxiliary\Build\vcvars64.bat" cl -Femain.exe -Ilmdb/libraries/liblmdb main.c lmdb/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c lmdb/libraries/liblmdb/midl.c Advapi32.lib cl -Feloop.exe -Ilmdb/libraries/liblmdb loop.c lmdb/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c lmdb/libraries/liblmdb/midl.c Advapi32.lib .\main.exe Example output: Loop 300000 400000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 500000 600000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 200000 300000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 400000 500000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 600000 700000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 100000 200000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 700000 800000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 900000 1000000 starting. Got ERROR_USER_MAPPED_FILE from mdb_env_set_mapsize(0). Loop 800000 900000 starting. Loop 800000 900000 done. Non-zero 0 exit code 1. Non-zero 1 exit code 1. Non-zero 2 exit code 1. Non-zero 3 exit code 1. Non-zero 4 exit code 1. Non-zero 5 exit code 1. Non-zero 6 exit code 1. Non-zero 8 exit code 1. All done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9640] New: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9640 Issue ID: 9640 Summary: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael(a)stroeder.com Target Milestone: --- I'm using LDAP write operations with MOD_INCREMENT with pre-read-control for uidNumber/gidNumber generation. I'd like to limit write access to an Integer attribute "nextID" to MOD_INCREMENT, ideally even restricting the de-/increment value. (Uniqueness is achieved with slapo-unique anyway but still I'd like to avoid users messing with this attribute). IMHO the ideal solution would be a new privilege "i". Example for limiting write access to increment by one and grant read access for using read control: access to attrs=nextID val=1 by group=... =ri Example for decrementing by two without read: access to attrs=nextID val=-2 by group=... =i -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs October 2022