openldap-bugs August 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
161 discussions

[Bug 9204] New: slapo-constraint allows anyone to apply Relax control
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '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 17

[Issue 9878] New: test043 failures in 2.5/2.6
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9878 Issue ID: 9878 Summary: test043 failures in 2.5/2.6 Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- With test043 update for ITS#9823, we manage to introduce a scenario where the server is completely idle except for a runqueue change. This is partly identical with ITS#9642 and a similar approach would work. Except that changes our module facing ABI so might not be something we can backport. For the streams we can't, we might have to change the test to make the server not idle. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10073] New: database monitor | slapd fails to start when "database ldap" without suffix exists
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10073 Issue ID: 10073 Summary: database monitor | slapd fails to start when "database ldap" without suffix exists Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: cyusedfzfb(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- As requested on the mailinglist, I am filing an issue for this behaviour: Today setup the cn=Monitor backend, and after doing so, openldap failed to start with: backend_startup_one (type=monitor, suffix="cn=Monitor"): bi_db_open failed! (-1) The reason turned out to be: we had configured one of our databases ("database ldap") without a suffix. After I added a suffix, openldap started, and cn=Monitor worked as expected. It would be nice if this error message could become a little bit more specific. :-) Also: we've had the "database ldap" without a suffix in production working for many years. Perhaps cn=Monitor should be able to deal with that config as well..? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10084] New: Move away from DIGEST-MD5 as a default in the test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10084 Issue ID: 10084 Summary: Move away from DIGEST-MD5 as a default in the test suite Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- cyrus-sasl seem on the verge or removing the DIGEST-MD5 mechanism from 2.2 onwards. As such we should update our defaults in a couple of our test scripts for master/2.7 at least. Are SCRAM mechanisms the go-to these days? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Bug 9244] New: API calls blocking after async connect
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9244 Bug ID: 9244 Summary: API calls blocking after async connect Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.49 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ryan(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 721 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=721&action=edit async connect test without TLS My understanding of LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is that the attached program should not block. If the connection does not establish fast enough, the bind call is supposed to return LDAP_X_CONNECTING. (At least that's how I understand it, based on the original behaviour (circa 2.4.23 up to 2.4.40) as well as the bind loop in back-meta. On the other hand, the man page does "Subsequent calls to library routines will poll for completion of the connect before performing further operations" which might be interpreted as meaning they would block...) In current releases it does block, as demonstrated by strace on Linux (latency added using 'tc qdisc'): [...] connect(3, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(389), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.204")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) poll([{fd=3, events=POLLOUT|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLOUT}]) write(3, "0\f\2\1\1`\7\2\1\3\4\0\200\0", 14) = 14 poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI}], 1, -1) = 1 ([{fd=3, revents=POLLIN}]) read(3, "0\f\2\1\1a\7\n", 8) = 8 read(3, "\1\0\4\0\4\0", 6) = 6 write(2, "OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 "..., 42OK: ldap_simple_bind_returned 0 (Success) ) = 42 [...] As discussed in IRC, I believe I bisected this down to commit ae6347bac, from bug 8022. The reasoning is sound, but ldap_int_open_connection does not actually return -2, only -1 or 0. The patch is simple enough, but I'm also looking at some later commits that were probably done to work around this, and might not be needed now (bug 8957, bug 8968, bug 8980). Also need to test all setups thoroughly (ldap, ldaps, STARTTLS, not to mention back-meta/asyncmeta). I also notice that LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC is not effective unless LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT is also set. It might be intentional, but the man page doesn't mention this specifically, and I don't see why it would be necessary... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 18

[Issue 9729] New: Allow setting multiprovider before adding syncrepl stanzas
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9729 Issue ID: 9729 Summary: Allow setting multiprovider before adding syncrepl stanzas Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- It should be possible to set multiprovider first, avoiding the window of the DB being read-only while performing an online upgrade of a single provider to an MPR set up and generally simplifying configuration. Instead, the only requirement should be that serverID has been explicitly set (hopefully != 0). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9642] New: Adding a task to runqueue doesn't wake the main thread
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9642 Issue ID: 9642 Summary: Adding a task to runqueue doesn't wake the main thread Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- If a connection adds a new syncrepl stanza, that is not started until the main thread comes around to doing it. However if that thread is currently stuck in SLAP_EVENT_WAIT() and nothing else happens (like an unbind over the connection that modified the config), the task is never started. This can take a long time. No idea yet how to wake it up with/from ldap_pvt_runqueue_insert() given that sits within libldap and not really something that should be calling slap_wake_listener(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9577] New: slapd -V should be deprecated
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9577 Issue ID: 9577 Summary: slapd -V should be deprecated Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Sometimes a user's (present one included) ignorance gets them in trouble unnecessarily. The -V option is an example... Normally, when one wants to determine the version of a process, they use -V, or perhaps -v. With slapd, the daemon actually continues to run, which can have negative consequences. The doc clearly states that -VV is probably what the user wants, but is counter-intutive. Who RTFM's before checking the version? -V print version info (-VV exit afterwards, -VVV print info about static overlays and backends) I propose we eliminate the option to allow slapd to continue running after displaying the version. Perhaps we eliminate the -V option entirely, or just make it work the same as -VV. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 9305] New: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9305 Issue ID: 9305 Summary: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.46 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: minfrin(a)sharp.fm Target Milestone: --- When the ldap_connect_to_host() function sees a failure from getaddrinfo(), the meaningless return code -1 is returned. This makes troubleshooting difficult on a webserver, where the low level printf debugging is not practical. (gdb) step ldap_connect_to_host (ld=ld@entry=0x7fffc4002e10, sb=0x7fffc400b240, proto=1, srv=srv@entry=0x7fffc400b2f0, async=async@entry=0) at os-ip.c:543 543 { (gdb) next 546 ber_socket_t s = AC_SOCKET_INVALID; (gdb) 562 if ( srv->lud_host == NULL || *srv->lud_host == 0 ) { (gdb) 568 port = srv->lud_port; (gdb) 570 if( !port ) { (gdb) 578 switch(proto) { (gdb) 580 osip_debug( ld, (gdb) warning: Source file is more recent than executable. 71 return __builtin___memset_chk (__dest, __ch, __len, __bos0 (__dest)); (gdb) 598 hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; (gdb) 601 hints.ai_socktype = socktype; (gdb) 602 snprintf(serv, sizeof serv, "%d", port ); (gdb) 605 LDAP_MUTEX_LOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 607 err = getaddrinfo( host, serv, &hints, &res ); (gdb) 609 LDAP_MUTEX_UNLOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 611 if ( err != 0 ) { (gdb) 612 osip_debug(ld, "ldap_connect_to_host: getaddrinfo failed: %s\n", (gdb) print host $3 = <optimized out> (gdb) print serv $4 = "636\000\000\000" (gdb) next 614 return -1; (gdb) The ldap_connect_to_host() function needs to return proper error codes. -- 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 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '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 12

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
17
Older →

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