openldap-bugs August 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
147 discussions

[Issue 9716] New: Fix default guide versions for head and 2.6
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 26 May '26

26 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9716 Issue ID: 9716 Summary: Fix default guide versions for head and 2.6 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: --- The preamble file needs to be fixed in openldap head and the 2.6 release branch to be correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9796] New: Deprecate GnuTLS support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 May '26

21 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9796 Issue ID: 9796 Summary: Deprecate GnuTLS support Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Support for GnuTLS was added specifically for the Debian (and thus Ubuntu) due to the license objections at the time that the Debian project had for the OpenSSL license. Since that time, Debian has reclassified OpenSSL as a core library and the OpenSSL project has resolved the original complaint by licensing OpenSSL 3 and later under the Apache License v2. Thus there is no longer a reason to maintain support for GnuTLS and given the long standing concerns over the security and quality of the GnuTLS bridge in addition to the extra cost of maintaining that code, it should be marked as deprecated and removed in a future release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9367] New: back-mdb: encryption support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 May '26

15 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9367 Issue ID: 9367 Summary: back-mdb: encryption support Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Need to add encryption support to the back-mdb backend, depends on issue#9364 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Bug 9225] New: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 May '26

13 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9225 Bug ID: 9225 Summary: back-mdb: Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.50 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Add support for PREPARE/2-phase commit in back-mdb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 13

[Bug 9211] New: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9211 Bug ID: 9211 Summary: Relax control is not consistently access-restricted Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The following operations can be performed by anyone having 'write' access (not even 'manage') using the Relax control: - modifying/replacing structural objectClass - adding/modifying OBSOLETE attributes Some operations are correctly restricted: - adding/modifying NO-USER-MODIFICATION attributes marked as manageable (Modification of non-conformant objects doesn't appear to be implemented at all.) In the absence of ACLs for controls, I'm of the opinion that all use of the Relax control should require manage access. The Relax draft clearly and repeatedly discusses its use cases in terms of directory _administrators_ temporarily relaxing constraints in order to accomplish a specific task. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 14

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9204 Bug ID: 9204 Summary: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- slapo-constraint doesn't limit who can use the Relax control, beyond the global limits applied by slapd. In practice, for many modifications this means any configured constraints are advisory only. In my opinion this should be considered a bug, in design if not implementation. I expect many admins would not read the man page closely enough to realize the behaviour does technically adhere to the letter of what's written there. Either slapd should require manage privileges for the Relax control globally, or slapo-constraint should perform a check for manage privilege itself, like slapo-unique does. Quoting ando in https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5705#c4: > Well, a user with "manage" privileges on related data could bypass > constraints enforced by slapo-constraint(5) by using the "relax" > control. The rationale is that a user with manage privileges could be > able to repair an entry that needs to violate a constraint for good > reasons. Note that the user: > > - must have enough privileges to do it (manage) > > - must inform the DSA that intends to violate the constraint (by using > the control) but such privileges are currently not being required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 16

[Issue 9640] New: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '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 6

[Issue 9739] New: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9739 Issue ID: 9739 Summary: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: simon.pichugin(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- While I was trying to build OpenLDAP 2.6 on Fedora Rawhide I've got the error message: /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ber_sockbuf_io_udp' I've checked commits from https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 and found that 'ber_sockbuf_io_udp' was not added to https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/liblber/… I've asked on the project's mailing list and got a reply: "That symbol only exists if OpenLDAP is built with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS defined, which is not a supported feature. Feel free to file a bug report at https://bugs.openldap.org/" https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… Hence, creating the bug. -- 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 06 May '26

06 May '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 12

[Issue 9291] New: Detection of corrupted database files
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '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 27

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 August 2023