openldap-bugs November 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
188 discussions

[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 10113] New: make connection debug output more uniform
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10113 Issue ID: 10113 Summary: make connection debug output more uniform Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: enhancement Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Here's what some of the debug output looks like currently: 6529a16e.07884bd6 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=8 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.0788551d 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on 1 descriptor 6529a16e.07885e63 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on:6529a16e.07886607 0x7f7a68dff640 6529a16e.07886f93 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=7 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.07887737 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=8 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.0788987f 0x7f7a63fff640 tls_write: want=239 error=Broken pipe 6529a16e.0788a369 0x7f7a63fff640 TLS trace: SSL_accept:SSLv3/TLS write session ticket 6529a16e.0788d027 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_read(12): unable to get TLS client DN, error=49 id=1000 6529a16e.0788e6cc 0x7f7a63fff640 conn=1000 fd=12 TLS established tls_ssf=128 ssf=128 tls_proto=TLSv1.3 tls_cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 6529a16e.078974a9 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on 2 descriptors 6529a16e.07898cf1 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on:6529a16e.07899409 0x7f7a68dff640 12r6529a16e.07899ef3 0x7f7a68dff640 6529a16e.0789a839 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: read active on 12 6529a16e.0789c1de 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=7 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.0789cd0e 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=8 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.0789d9e0 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on 1 descriptor 6529a16e.0789e36d 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on:6529a16e.0789eaca 0x7f7a68dff640 6529a16e.0789f26e 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=7 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.0789fd9d 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: epoll: listen=8 active_threads=0 tvp=NULL 6529a16e.078a0a70 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_get(12) 6529a16e.078a1ea0 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_get(12): got connid=1000 6529a16e.078a25b8 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_read(12): checking for input on id=1000 6529a16e.078a32d0 0x7f7a63fff640 ber_get_next 6529a16e.078a6a78 0x7f7a63fff640 tls_read: want=5, got=5 6529a16e.078a7d91 0x7f7a63fff640 0000: 30 05 02 01 02 0.... 6529a16e.078aa0c2 0x7f7a63fff640 tls_write: want=24 error=Broken pipe 6529a16e.078aa820 0x7f7a63fff640 ldap_read: want=8 error=Broken pipe 6529a16e.078ab121 0x7f7a63fff640 ber_get_next on fd 12 failed errno=32 (Broken pipe) 6529a16e.078aba67 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_read(12): input error=-2 id=1000, closing. 6529a16e.078ac3ae 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_closing: readying conn=1000 sd=12 for close 6529a16e.078ad0c6 0x7f7a63fff640 connection_close: conn=1000 sd=12 6529a16e.078aed26 0x7f7a63fff640 daemon: removing 12 6529a16e.078b2ffd 0x7f7a68dff640 daemon: activity on 1 descriptor 6529a16e.078b4616 0x7f7a63fff640 conn=1000 fd=12 closed (connection lost) Most operations will be logged with "conn=xxxx fd=yy blah blah" but things like connection_close etc log "blah blah conn=xxxx sd=yy" instead. It would be nice if they all uniformly started with "conn=xxxx fd=yy blah blah" This is a trivial change. Could be a good first-time commit for a new dev. -- 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 10278] New: Move away from python-ldap0 in the test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10278 Issue ID: 10278 Summary: Move away from python-ldap0 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: --- While python-ldap0 has a superior API, it seems the module is no longer receiving any development. We should move our python test suite over to another module that can be supported long-term. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[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

[Issue 9796] New: Deprecate GnuTLS support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 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

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
19
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 November 2024