openldap-bugs September 2024

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
121 discussions

[Issue 10258] New: test050 failure: connection_close race?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10258 Issue ID: 10258 Summary: test050 failure: connection_close race? 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: --- Created attachment 1032 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1032&action=edit tail of slapd log Running test050 repeatedly, the slapd managed to get itself into an apparent inconsistency in the connections structure. The logs suggest that there might be a race closing the connection. Unfortunately the sanitiser didn't initiate a core dump in this case. -- 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 16 Dec '25

16 Dec '25

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 19

[Issue 10149] New: [PATCH] Allow certificates and keys to be read from URIs.
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10149 Issue ID: 10149 Summary: [PATCH] Allow certificates and keys to be read from URIs. Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: minfrin(a)sharp.fm Target Milestone: --- Add the LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_URIS and LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_CACERTURIS options to allow certificates and keys to be set using OpenSSL provider URIs. 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 Graham Leggett minfrin(a)sharp.fm. 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 Graham Leggett 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 13

[Issue 9577] New: slapd -V should be deprecated
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

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 8

[Issue 9640] New: ACL privilege for MOD_INCREMENT
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

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 5

[Issue 9305] New: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Dec '25

15 Dec '25

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 7

[Issue 9936] New: slapd attempting free on address which was not malloced
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9936 Issue ID: 9936 Summary: slapd attempting free on address which was not malloced 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: kimjuhi96(a)snu.ac.kr Target Milestone: --- I get invalid free running this on the latest openldap from git, built with CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" using clang 15. Seems this is similar to https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9912. ./servers/slapd/slapd -T c -s1 -s1 Stopped reason: SIGABRT __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 50 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory. gdb-peda$ bt #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 #1 0x00007ffff78ca859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #2 0x00005555556eb04f in __sanitizer::Abort () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cpp:143 #3 0x00005555556e8aac in __sanitizer::Die () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cpp:58 #4 0x00005555556c5dda in __asan::ScopedInErrorReport::~ScopedInErrorReport (this=0x7fffffffbe7e, __in_chrg=<optimized out>) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:192 #5 0x00005555556c72b8 in __asan::ReportFreeNotMalloced (addr=<optimized out>, free_stack=0x7fffffffca90) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:199 #6 0x00005555556c02ab in __interceptor_free (ptr=0x7fffffffe359) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:53 #7 0x0000555555d3efe2 in ber_memfree_x () #8 0x0000555555847d33 in ch_free () #9 0x0000555555a31178 in slap_tool_init () #10 0x0000555555a2e54d in slapcat () #11 0x000055555570901f in main () #12 0x00007ffff78cc083 in __libc_start_main (main=0x555555706ef0 <main>, argc=0x5, argv=0x7fffffffdfc8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffdfb8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0x000055555561011e in _start () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:397 gdb-peda$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9816] New: slapcat cordeumps during mdb subtree dump with -s
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9816 Issue ID: 9816 Summary: slapcat cordeumps during mdb subtree dump with -s Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.11 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: khoffmann(a)united-internet.de Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 887 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=887&action=edit gdb backtrace of slapcat run When trying to use slapcat in combination with -b and -s in order to create a LDIF backup of a mdb subtree, slapd crashes with a coredump (please see the attached snippet with gdb output from a reproduced test tree). The problem was reporducible with different mdb databases / suffixes and only appears with option -s. The same dump with -H 'ldap:///ou=users,o=company,c=de??sub?' instead of -s ou=users,o=company,c=de works perfectly fine, as long as the "attrs part" is empty in the ldap-uri. Also using slapcat with -b only (for a full database dump) works fine as well. I'm aware of the fact that -s option is marked as DEPRECATED - I'm not sure if you are going to fix this bug or if you rather take the change to remove the option completely from future major versions. Please let me also know if it's expected behaviour that the -H option doesn't work whenever the attribute part isn't empty and if I should contribute to a documentation update for this edge case. Best regards, Kris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10100] New: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10100 Issue ID: 10100 Summary: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Presents as a dsync during replication. Consumer will log ``` 650af021.2eadd901 0000000000001b40 slap_queue_csn: queueing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.2eaed239 0000000000001b40 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.317b2a35 000000000000185c do_syncrep2: rid=102 CSN too old, ignoring 20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 (uid=slapd-test1-FOO1-6,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com) ``` The entry was not be added. The provider will log messages using non-sequential timestamps. For example, when grepping the CSN from above (in provider log): ``` # This: 650af021.3b3060d9 0000000000001ad8 conn=1001 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: to=002, cookie=rid=102,sid=001,csn=20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 # and: 650af021.02648749 0000000000001810 slap_get_csn: conn=1003 op=7 generated new csn=20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1 ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10250] New: syncrepl_diff_entry assumes attributes come in the same order
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10250 Issue ID: 10250 Summary: syncrepl_diff_entry assumes attributes come in the same order 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: --- When trying to diff an entry, syncrepl_diff_entry explicitly assumes attribute come in the same order. That's not always the case and could cause it to report a spurious rewrite of the attribute. Normally this is ok, unless the rewrite itself (not) occurring has other side-effects, when it could cause issues. (e.g. a DB with memberof inconsistencies being mysteriously repaired in some scenarios, which is how it was found). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs September 2024