openldap-bugs June 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

2 participants
40 discussions

[Issue 10222] New: mdb_dump page has outdated information about user-defined comparison functions
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 28 Jun '24

28 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10222 Issue ID: 10222 Summary: mdb_dump page has outdated information about user-defined comparison functions Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: zach.vonler(a)sambanovasystems.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1019 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1019&action=edit Patch to mdb_dump man page The `mdb_dump` man page contains an outdated section warning that databases created with user-defined comparison functions cannot be dumped and reloaded without changes to the `mdb_load` program. The `-a` option that was added to the `mdb_load` program in this commit https://github.com/openldap/openldap/commit/7796aaebcd1b937233adab5b1f3d3a1… made it possible to reload such databases, so this patch updates the `mdb_dump` man page to reflect that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10147] New: Bind dn is getting malformed inside ldap_sasl_bind function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Jun '24

25 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10147 Issue ID: 10147 Summary: Bind dn is getting malformed inside ldap_sasl_bind function Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: satishkumar1728(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Hi team, We are using open ldap version 2.6 in one of our application processes. We are using ldap_sasl_bind function defined in open ldap api to send bind request to ldap server. We are passing the dn name to the above function and it is parsing the dn name as expected. We have added some print statements inside ldap_sasl_bind function and it is printing the dn string that we passed to the function. Also, ldap_sasl_bind function will accept const char pointer to dn as an argument. So, it cannot modify the dn string inside the function. But somehow the bind dn is getting malformed and we are getting failed bind response from the ldap server (invalid DN). We did some analysis using tcpdump and we found out that the dn string that we passed to the ldap_sasl_bind function and the dn string from the tcpdump are different. We did some code walkthrough of ldap_sasl_bind function and it is observed that it is doing some ber encoding of dn name inside the function. We are suspecting that the encoding is not happening properly. Example dn that we passed to ldap_sasl_bin function: "uid=abc, ou=users, dc=fds, dc=mr" Dn name that was captured in tcpdump at source: "uid=abc, o dc= dc= dc= dc= dc=mr" Is there any specific reason for the bind DN to get malformed like this inside ldap_sasl_bind function. Do you have any observations like this in any scenario. Kindly provide some inputs to resolve this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10175] New: Secure LDAP is not working on GCC 10.3.0
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Jun '24

25 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10175 Issue ID: 10175 Summary: Secure LDAP is not working on GCC 10.3.0 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: bluesoulprince(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Hi Team, We have recently migrated our C++ application which is using OpenLDAP 2.6 to GCC version 10.3.0. We are observing difference in LDAP behavior. The non-secure version of LDAP is able to return the result in GCC 10.3.0, however when we switch to secure LDAP, it is not able to return with result. There was no compilation / build issue observed while building our application. Our query is, does secure LDAP from OpenLDAP ver 2.6 have any compatibility issues over GCC 10.3.0? If there are any issues identified over this version, how to resolve those? in which version fixes for them are available? Thanks, Vivek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 10140] New: Add microsecond timestamp format for local file logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 20 Jun '24

20 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10140 Issue ID: 10140 Summary: Add microsecond timestamp format for local file logging Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: gnoe(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Add microsecond-level timestamps to local file logging. Format is: "YYYY-mm-ddTHH:MM:SS.ffffffZ" The attached patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the following patch(es) were developed by Gregory Noe gnoe(a)symas.com. I have not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. The attached modifications to OpenLDAP Software are subject to the following notice: Copyright 2023 Gregory Noe Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted only as authorized by the OpenLDAP Public License. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10228] New: config LDAP_BACK_CONN_PRIV_MAX to higher value
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10228 Issue ID: 10228 Summary: config LDAP_BACK_CONN_PRIV_MAX to higher value Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.16 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: shaosong.li(a)salesforce.com Target Milestone: --- Hi, LDAP_BACK_CONN_PRIV_MAX parameter is set to 256 by below config, https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_5/serv… Can we set this value to a higher value, such as 7k/10k, which is commonly used in PingDirectory. Any reason that we set this value to a low value like 256, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

2 8

[Issue 10060] New: libldap: ldap_result return value differs depending on if a search response is already in the response list or not
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10060 Issue ID: 10060 Summary: libldap: ldap_result return value differs depending on if a search response is already in the response list or not Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: david(a)hardeman.nu Target Milestone: --- ldap_result(3) is defined here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… On this line, ldap_result will call wait4msg: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… wait4msg is defined here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… If a response for a given msgid is already stored in the response list, and all=1, the whole message chain will be returned by the call from wait4msg to chkResponseList here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… And rc will be set on the next line to the head of the message chain. If a response for a given msgid is *not* already stored in the response list, wait4msg will eventually call try_read1msg here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… If try_read1msg manages to receive the final search result message for a given msgid, it will be noted here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… The whole chain will be returned here: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… And the return code will be the tag of the *last* message in the chain, as opposed to the *first* message in the chain: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/libldap/… Which will result in different return codes for chains of multiple messages (i.e. search results with all=1). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Issue 10138] New: Allow generating multiple nested read transactions from a write transaction
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 18 Jun '24

18 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10138 Issue ID: 10138 Summary: Allow generating multiple nested read transactions from a write transaction Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.30 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: renault.cle(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Hello, I have a feature request. Would it be possible to read a database from the point of view of a non-yet-committed write transaction? What I want to do is to write a lot of entries into a database, use a couple of threads to read those entries (using MDB_NOTLS) to generate a lot of new entries (that will be written to disk and then once the generation is done, drop the read-transaction handles and write (with MDB_APPEND) those new entries from disk into LMDB. This would have been possible if I had committed the first entries, but unfortunately, it is impossible. I need to do this in the same transaction. Have a great day, kero -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 10225] New: tlso_session_pinning: will crash if digest/keyhash.bv_val is not properly initialized over the lifetime of the function
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Jun '24

07 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10225 Issue ID: 10225 Summary: tlso_session_pinning: will crash if digest/keyhash.bv_val is not properly initialized over the lifetime of the function Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: yaneurabeya(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- tlso_session_pinning(..) does not initialize the `digest` stack memory before referring to it later on in the function. This can result in a library crash if (for whatever reason) keyhash.bv_val fails to initialize properly on line 1191 [1]. This issue kind of goes hand in hand with bug 10224. 1. https://github.com/openldap/openldap/blob/15edb3b30f2b6a3dbdf77cc42d39466d5… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10221] New: Fix build script for 2.5.18
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10221 Issue ID: 10221 Summary: Fix build script for 2.5.18 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.17 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: delphij(a)freebsd.org Target Milestone: --- Hi, In revision 619afaccab5 (ITS#10177) an extra " was introduced, which will prevent configure script from working with FreeBSD's sh(1) (I suspect it would also break on other shell implementations). The fix is to delete that extra ". This affects OpenLDAP 2.5.18 only. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10220] New: Feature Request: new option for append-only write transaction
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 31 May '24

31 May '24

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10220 Issue ID: 10220 Summary: Feature Request: new option for append-only write transaction 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: xhtang518(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- My project uses LMDB to store values larger than 100KB, and rarely delete values. So I can afford wasting some space on free pages, then LMDB can reduce 4KB-write operations and improve write performance when committing write transactions. I suppose this feature is not hard to implement: just pretend the free-list is empty in this transaction if the new option is present. Is this feature reasonable? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs June 2024