openldap-bugs September 2023

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
161 discussions

[Issue 9796] New: Deprecate GnuTLS support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '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 9

[Issue 9493] New: slapo-accesslog handling of deletion of multi-valued configuration attributes removes wrong value from list
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9493 Issue ID: 9493 Summary: slapo-accesslog handling of deletion of multi-valued configuration attributes removes wrong value from list Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.57 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: svella(a)technologist.com Target Milestone: --- I observed this in the debugger while working on a small feature addition to slapo-accesslog. log_cf_gen(), when handling the initial configuration of oldAccessLogOldAttr (accesslog.c:989), linked list li_oldattrs is being built by inserting each value in order at the head of the list, resulting in the list being in reverse order. But when handling LDAP_MOD_DELETE of same attribute (accesslog.c:989), it is using the index of the removed value (valx) to find and removed the entry in the linked list, but it's counting from the head of li_oldattrs and not the tail, resulting in the wrong item being removed from the list unless counting from the head or the tail happens find the same item. (Line numbers refer to commit 6c469f07935e351e349bf38fc223dab704c51a76) Handling of oldAccessLogBase appears to have the same problem, and a cursory glance through the source of other overlays reveals a similar pattern, and I'm guessing the same problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 22

[Issue 9556] New: slapd-config should return invalidAttributeSyntax if parsing schema description fails
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9556 Issue ID: 9556 Summary: slapd-config should return invalidAttributeSyntax if parsing schema description fails Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.4 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 currently testing error handling and interacting with LDAP clients (e.g. my web2ldap). Sending an invalid attribute type description results in an error (as expected) returned by slapd-config: RESULT tag=103 err=80 qtime=0.000032 etime=0.001271 text=olcAttributeTypes: Unexpected token before SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) But result code other(80) seems not very useful. It's too unspecific to decide on specific error handling. It would be much more useful if slapd-config returns invalidAttributeSyntax(21) in this case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9959] New: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959 Issue ID: 9959 Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're at it, might also expose the current bound identity there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

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

08 Aug '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 8

[Issue 9909] New: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909 Issue ID: 9909 Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown 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: --- slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is never released on shutdown. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10026] New: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10026 Issue ID: 10026 Summary: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly) Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Take MPR plain syncrepl with 3+ providers. When a provider's own syncrepl session transitions to persist and a it starts a new parallel session towards another host, that session always has to start as a refresh. If that refresh serves entries to us, our handling of si_dirty is not consistent: - if the existing persist session serves some of these entries to us, we can "forget" to pass the others to a newly connected consumer - same if the refresh is abandoned and we start refreshing from a different provider that might be behind what we were being served (again our consumers could suffer) - if we restart, si_dirty is forgotten and our consumers suffer even worse We might need to be told (at the beginning of the refresh?) what the end state we're going for is, so we can keep si_dirty on until then. And somehow persist that knowledge in the DB... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 31

[Issue 9388] New: mdb_stat for DupSort DBI shows incorrect data
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Aug '26

08 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9388 Issue ID: 9388 Summary: mdb_stat for DupSort DBI shows incorrect data Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.26 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: AskAlexSharov(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- It doesn't include pages pages used for values. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10054] New: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jul '26

13 Jul '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10054 Issue ID: 10054 Summary: Value size limited to 2,147,479,552 bytes Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: louis(a)meilisearch.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, According to the documentation[0], a database that is not using `MDB_DUPSORT` can store values up to `0xffffffff` bytes (around 4GB). In practice, under Linux, the actual limit is `0x7ffff000` though (2^31 - 4096, so around 2GB). This is due to the write loop in `mdb_page_flush`. The `wsize` value determining how many bytes will be written can be as big as `4096*dp->mp_pages`[1], and the number of overflow pages grows with the size of the value put inside the DB. The `wsize` is not split in smaller chunks in the case where there are many overflow pages to write, and as a result the call to `pwrite`[2] does not perform a full write, but only a "short" write of 2147479552 bytes (the maximum allowed on a call to `pwrite` on Linux[3]). This would be OK if the short write condition was handled by looping and performing another `pwrite` with the rest of the data, but instead `EIO` is returned[4]. There seems to be a related, but different issue on macOS when trying to `pwrite` more the 2^31 bytes, that was already reported[5]. This issue was reported to me by a Meilisearch user because it causes their database indexing to fail[6]. I had to investigate a bit because their setup was peculiar (high number of documents in their database) and the `EIO` error code is not very descriptive of the underlying issue. I join a C reproducer of the issue that attempts to add a 2147479553 bytes value to the DB and fails with `EIO` (decreasing `nb_items` to a smaller value such as `2107479552` does succeed)[7]. Thank you for making LMDB! Louis Dureuil. [0]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/lmdb.h#LL284… [1]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#LL3770… [2]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3820 [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70368651/why-cant-linux-write-more-than… [4]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/mdb.master/libraries/liblmdb/mdb.c#L3840 [5]: https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9736 [6]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/issues/3654 [7]: https://github.com/dureuill/lmdb_3654/tree/main -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Bug 9223] New: Add support for incremental backup
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 01 Jul '26

01 Jul '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

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
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 September 2023