openldap-bugs October 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
18 discussions

[Issue 10395] New: Support multiple readers on uncommitted changes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 23 Oct '25

23 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10395 Issue ID: 10395 Summary: Support multiple readers on uncommitted changes Product: LMDB Version: unspecified 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: --- Created attachment 1086 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1086&action=edit A patch to support multiple readers on uncommitted changes Hello, The attached patch is not meant to be merged immediately into LMDB. Still, it demonstrates how I added a helpful feature to the key-value store: reading uncommitted changes from multiple transactions. I am conscious that the patch still requires some work and uses non-C99 features, i.e., atomics are C11, which could be a blocker for it to be merged upstream. I would also be delighted to merge these changes under a flag/define to ensure we don't impact other users with non-C99 stuff. The main feature we need at Meilisearch is to read uncommitted changes from multiple threads, compute parallel post-processing of different data structures [1], and speed up the search requests. We could have done the post-processing in a following transaction by opening multiple read transactions, but this would mean that the post-processed data structure would not include newly inserted or modified document IDs. Both data structures would be desync. Regarding the design choice, I decided to follow the same design as the nested write transactions: use the parent argument of the mdb_txn_begin [2], and allow the MDB_RDONLY flag, which was disallowed when the parent argument was non-NULL [3]. I find it clear enough that, by calling the mdb_txn_begin function with these arguments, you can call it multiple times (I need to update the doc) to obtain nested read-only transactions from the parent write transaction. ret = mdb_txn_begin(env, parent_txn, MDB_RDONLY, new_nested_rtxn); Note that this early proposal lacks security and error handling. The generated transactions are fake-read-only and actually write transactions that share the underlying parent allocations and data structures. This is unsafe and must be changed or reviewed carefully, but most importantly, we need to add read-only capabilities to these transactions to disallow writes. Using a Rust wrapper on top of LMDB, I wrapped the fake read-only transactions into ReadTxn, which disallows any writes at compile time. However, I haven't checked the conflict database creations or openings. The main issues I encountered were concurrent free of the main shared data structures when the different threads owning the transactions were dropping the transactions simultaneously. So, I decided to implement the equivalent of an ARC to free resources only when the last nested transaction was freed. I can share numbers about how this feature improves the post-processing by 4x-9x or from 1200s to 120s [1]. You can look at this PR, which I would be happy to merge once an improved version of this patch lands on LMDB upstream. I would be very happy if you could guide me a bit on how I could improve this patch to make it mergeable into LMDB. We want to contribute useful features like this to LMDB and not keep a deviant fork. LMDB works great; we are happy about it, and its performance is predictable. Have a lovely week, kero [1]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/pull/5307 [2]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/14d6629bc8a9fe40d8a6bee1bf71c45afe7576b6/… [3]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/14d6629bc8a9fe40d8a6bee1bf71c45afe7576b6/… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10353] New: No TLS connection on Windows because of missing ENOTCONN in socket.h
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10353 Issue ID: 10353 Summary: No TLS connection on Windows because of missing ENOTCONN in socket.h Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: julien.wadel(a)belledonne-communications.com Target Milestone: --- On Windows, the TLS connection cannot be done and we get the connection error: Can't contact LDAP server. => Connections are done with WSAGetLastError(). After getting WSAEWOULDBLOCK, the connection is not restart because of the state WSAENOTCONN that is not known. OpenLDAP use ENOTCONN that is set to 126 by "ucrt/errno.h" while WSAENOTCONN is 10057L. Adding #define ENOTCONN WSAENOTCONN like for EWOULDBLOCK resolve the issue. Reference commit on external project: https://gitlab.linphone.org/BC/public/external/openldap/-/commit/62fbfb12e8… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 7901] slapschema reports error but returns 0
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901 Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> --- https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/800 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10274] New: Replication issue on MMR configuration
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10274 Issue ID: 10274 Summary: Replication issue on MMR configuration Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: falgon.comp(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1036 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1036&action=edit In this attachment you will find 2 openldap configurations for 2 instances + slamd conf exemple + 5 screenshots to show the issue and one text file to explain what you see Hello we are openning this issue further to the initial post in technical : https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… Issue : We are working on a project and we've come across an issue with the replication after performance testing : *Configuration :* RHEL 8.6 OpenLDAP 2.5.14 *MMR-delta *configuration on multiple servers attached 300,000 users configured and used for tests *olcLastBind: TRUE* Use of SLAMD (performance shooting) *Problem description:* We are currently running performance and resilience tests on our infrastructure using the SLAMD tool configured to perform BINDs and MODs on a defined range of accounts. We use a load balancer (VIP) to poll all of our servers equally. (but it is possible to do performance tests directly on each of the directories) With our current infrastructure we're able to perform approximately 300 MOD/BIND/s. Beyond that, we start to generate delays and can randomly come across one issue. However, when we run performance tests that exceed our write capacity, our replication between servers can randomly create an incident with directories being unable to catch up with their replication delay. The directories update their contextCSNs, but extremely slowly (like freezing). From then on, it's impossible for the directories to catch again. (even with no incoming traffic) A restart of the instance is required to perform a full refresh and solve the incident. We have enabled synchronization logs and have no error or refresh logs to indicate a problem ( we can provide you with logs if necessary). We suspect a write collision or a replication conflict but this is never write in our sync logs. We've run a lot of tests. For example, when we run a performance test on a single live server, we don't reproduce the problem. Anothers examples: if we define different accounts ranges for each server with SALMD, we don't reproduce the problem either. If we use only one account for the range, we don't reproduce the problem either. ______________________________________________________________________ I have add some screenshots on attachement to show you the issue and all the explanations. ______________________________________________________________________ *Symptoms :* One or more directories can no longer be replicated normally after performance testing ends. No apparent error logs. Need a restart of instances to solve the problem. *How to reproduce the problem:* Have at least two servers in MMR mode Set LastBind to TRUE Perform a SLAMD shot from a LoadBalancer in bandwidth mode OR start multiple SLAMD test on same time for each server with the same account range. Exceed the maximum write capacity of the servers. *SLAMD configuration :* authrate.sh --hostname ${HOSTNAME} --port ${PORTSSL} \ --useSSL --trustStorePath ${CACERTJKS} \ --trustStorePassword ${CACERTJKSPW} --bindDN "${BINDDN}" \ --bindPassword ${BINDPW} --baseDN "${BASEDN}" \ --filter "(uid=[${RANGE}])" --credentials ${USERPW} \ --warmUpIntervals ${WARMUP} \ --numThreads ${NTHREADS} ${ARGS} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 16

[Issue 10401] New: liblber: undefined shift of -1 in ber_decode_int()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10401 Issue ID: 10401 Summary: liblber: undefined shift of -1 in ber_decode_int() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Report from curl project. Full info here https://gist.github.com/bagder/44a0711fa1989951f2a2395fe992530e Relevant stack trace: [Environment] UBSAN_OPTIONS=exitcode=77:print_stacktrace=1:silence_unsigned_overflow=1 +----------------------------------------Release Build Stacktrace----------------------------------------+ Command: /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/resources/platform/linux/unshare -c -n /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/builds/clusterfuzz-builds_curl_4cc8f5a06444eef5b5b6682762bec8608d45b81b/revisions/curl_fuzzer_ldap -rss_limit_mb=2560 -timeout=60 -runs=100 /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/inputs/fuzzer-testcases/crash-1364ab2dfa120fe4460381a08f4f158f8d47a30c Time ran: 0.14911556243896484 INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100). INFO: Seed: 1947994398 INFO: Loaded 1 modules (211579 inline 8-bit counters): 211579 [0x559e5bb87a40, 0x559e5bbbb4bb), INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (211579 PCs): 211579 [0x559e5bbbb4c0,0x559e5bef5c70), /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/builds/clusterfuzz-builds_curl_4cc8f5a06444eef5b5b6682762bec8608d45b81b/revisions/curl_fuzzer_ldap: Running 1 inputs 100 time(s) each. Running: /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/inputs/fuzzer-testcases/crash-1364ab2dfa120fe4460381a08f4f158f8d47a30c decode.c:316:21: runtime error: left shift of negative value -1 #0 0x559e5b730e08 in ber_decode_int curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/liblber/decode.c:316:21 #1 0x559e5b730c5d in ber_get_int curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/liblber/decode.c:293:9 #2 0x559e5b6e60f3 in try_read1msg curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/libldap/result.c:592:7 #3 0x559e5b6e60f3 in wait4msg curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/libldap/result.c:393:12 #4 0x559e5b6e60f3 in ldap_result curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/libldap/result.c:120:7 #5 0x559e5af804d6 in oldap_connecting curl/lib/openldap.c:826:10 #6 0x559e5aead984 in protocol_connecting curl/lib/multi.c:1794:14 #7 0x559e5aead984 in multi_runsingle curl/lib/multi.c:2510:16 #8 0x559e5aeacd4f in curl_multi_perform curl/lib/multi.c:2791:18 #9 0x559e5ae7fb38 in fuzz_handle_transfer(fuzz_data*) curl_fuzzer/curl_fuzzer.cc:419:5 #10 0x559e5ae7eff0 in LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput curl_fuzzer/curl_fuzzer.cc:97:3 #11 0x559e5add608d in fuzzer::Fuzzer::ExecuteCallback(unsigned char const*, unsigned long) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerLoop.cpp:619:13 #12 0x559e5adc0e02 in fuzzer::RunOneTest(fuzzer::Fuzzer*, char const*, unsigned long) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:329:6 #13 0x559e5adc6cd0 in fuzzer::FuzzerDriver(int*, char***, int (*)(unsigned char const*, unsigned long)) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:865:9 #14 0x559e5adf2802 in main /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerMain.cpp:20:10 #15 0x7c4beb5b7082 in __libc_start_main /build/glibc-LcI20x/glibc-2.31/csu/libc-start.c:308:16 #16 0x559e5adb9eed in _start SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior decode.c:316:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10400] New: NULL pointer deref in ldap_parse_result
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10400 Issue ID: 10400 Summary: NULL pointer deref in ldap_parse_result Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Report from curl project. Full info here https://gist.github.com/bagder/8aae731b05bf423205db3d71aaedf18c Relevant stack trace: [Environment] ASAN_OPTIONS=exitcode=77 +----------------------------------------Release Build Stacktrace----------------------------------------+ Command: /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/resources/platform/linux/unshare -c -n /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/builds/clusterfuzz-builds_curl_d1a7f12cc2e5055727a9c66d5eca203f3c8f5a6c/revisions/curl_fuzzer_ldap -rss_limit_mb=2560 -timeout=60 -runs=100 /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/inputs/fuzzer-testcases/crash-0f193edf6a069aa877a89a9f31c6b4d0c47ff028 Time ran: 0.0964963436126709 INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100). INFO: Seed: 2389202903 INFO: Loaded 1 modules (166249 inline 8-bit counters): 166249 [0x55ca1b31da20, 0x55ca1b346389), INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (166249 PCs): 166249 [0x55ca1b346390,0x55ca1b5cfa20), /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/builds/clusterfuzz-builds_curl_d1a7f12cc2e5055727a9c66d5eca203f3c8f5a6c/revisions/curl_fuzzer_ldap: Running 1 inputs 100 time(s) each. Running: /mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/inputs/fuzzer-testcases/crash-0f193edf6a069aa877a89a9f31c6b4d0c47ff028 AddressSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL ================================================================= ==402==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x000000000000 (pc 0x55ca1ae33b22 bp 0x7ffd8c148e00 sp 0x7ffd8c148d00 T0) ==402==The signal is caused by a READ memory access. ==402==Hint: address points to the zero page. #0 0x55ca1ae33b22 in ldap_parse_result curl_fuzzer/build/openldap/src/openldap_external/libraries/libldap/error.c:264:26 #1 0x55ca1a3c0b45 in oldap_connecting curl/lib/openldap.c:844:10 #2 0x55ca1a25c34f in protocol_connecting curl/lib/multi.c:1794:14 #3 0x55ca1a25c34f in multi_runsingle curl/lib/multi.c:2510:16 #4 0x55ca1a25a985 in curl_multi_perform curl/lib/multi.c:2791:18 #5 0x55ca1a20c048 in fuzz_handle_transfer(fuzz_data*) curl_fuzzer/curl_fuzzer.cc:419:5 #6 0x55ca1a20afd7 in LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput curl_fuzzer/curl_fuzzer.cc:97:3 #7 0x55ca1a0a854d in fuzzer::Fuzzer::ExecuteCallback(unsigned char const*, unsigned long) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerLoop.cpp:619:13 #8 0x55ca1a0932c2 in fuzzer::RunOneTest(fuzzer::Fuzzer*, char const*, unsigned long) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:329:6 #9 0x55ca1a099190 in fuzzer::FuzzerDriver(int*, char***, int (*)(unsigned char const*, unsigned long)) /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:865:9 #10 0x55ca1a0c4cc2 in main /src/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerMain.cpp:20:10 #11 0x7d3b976eb082 in __libc_start_main /build/glibc-LcI20x/glibc-2.31/csu/libc-start.c:308:16 #12 0x55ca1a08c3ad in _start ==402==Register values: rax = 0x0000000000000000 rbx = 0x00007ffd8c148d00 rcx = 0x0000799b969e0e00 rdx = 0x0000000000000000 rdi = 0x0000799b969e0e00 rsi = 0x0000793b959d5920 rbp = 0x00007ffd8c148e00 rsp = 0x00007ffd8c148d00 r8 = 0x000055ca1b751a00 r9 = 0x00007fffffffff01 r10 = 0x00007fffffffff01 r11 = 0x0000000000000001 r12 = 0x0000793b956d2800 r13 = 0x0000000000000000 r14 = 0x0000000000000000 r15 = 0x0000000000000000 AddressSanitizer can not provide additional info. SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: SEGV (/mnt/scratch0/clusterfuzz/bot/builds/clusterfuzz-builds_curl_d1a7f12cc2e5055727a9c66d5eca203f3c8f5a6c/revisions/curl_fuzzer_ldap+0x1411b22) ==402==ABORTING -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10391] New: Add proper compiler/linker flag for threading support on HP-UX
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 16 Oct '25

16 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10391 Issue ID: 10391 Summary: Add proper compiler/linker flag for threading support on HP-UX Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: michael.osipov(a)innomotics.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1085 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1085&action=edit Patch against master If an application uses a thread-enabled library or the application itself is thread enabled it is imperative on HP-UX to use the -mt flag through out build. The compiler will transform into proper -D and -l flags. From the manpage: -mt Sets various -D flags to enable multi-threading. Also sets -lpthread. +Oopenmp automatically implies -mt. For details see HP C/aC++ Online Programmer's Guide. Find a Git-formatted patch attached. Sample output: libtool: link: /opt/aCC/bin/aCC -AC99 +We901 -o ldapsearch ldapsearch.o common.o ldsversion.o -L/opt/ports/lib/hpux32 ../../libraries/liblutil/liblutil.a ../../libraries/libldap/.libs/libldap.a -L/opt/ports/lib /var/tmp/ports/work/openldap-threading-hpux/libraries/liblber/.libs/liblber.a ../../libraries/liblber/.libs/liblber.a /opt/ports/lib/hpux32/libsasl2.so -ldl -lssl -lcrypto -mt -Wl,+b -Wl,/opt/ports/lib/hpux32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 9564] New: Race condition with freeing the spilled pages from transaction
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Oct '25

15 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9564 Issue ID: 9564 Summary: Race condition with freeing the spilled pages from transaction Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.29 Hardware: Other OS: Mac OS Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 825 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=825&action=edit Free the spilled pages and dirty overflows before unlocking the write mutex The spilled pages (a transaction's mt_spill_pgs) is freed *after* a write transaction's mutex is unlocked (in mdb.master3). This can result in a race condition where a second transaction can start and subsequently assign a new mt_spill_pgs list to the transaction structure that it reuses. If this occurs after the first transaction unlocks the mutex, but before it performs the free operation on mt_spill_pgs, then the first transaction will end up calling a free on the same spilled page list as the second transaction, resulting in a double free (and crash). It would seem to be an extremely unlikely scenario to actually happen, since the free call is literally the next operation after the mutex is unlocked, and the second transaction would need to make it all the way to the point of saving the freelist before a page spill list is likely to be allocated. Consequently, this probably has rarely happened. However, one of our users (see https://github.com/DoctorEvidence/lmdb-store/issues/48 for the discussion) has noticed this occurring, and it seems that it may be particularly likely to happen on MacOS on the new M1 silicon. Perhaps there is some peculiarity to how the threads are more likely to yield execution after a mutex unlock, I am not sure. I was able to reproduce the issue by intentionally manipulating the timing (sleeping before the free) to verify that the race condition is technically feasible, and apparently this can happen "in the wild" on MacOS, at least with an M1. It is also worth noting that this is due to (or a regression from) the fix for ITS#9155 (https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/commit/cb256f409bb53efeda4ac69ee8165a0b4fc1a277) where the free call was moved outside the conditional (for having a parent) that had previously never been executed after the mutex is unlocked, but now is called after the unlock. Anyway, the solution is relatively simple, the free call simply has to be moved above the unlock. In my patch, I also moved the free call for mt_dirty_ovs. I am not sure what OVERFLOW_NOTYET/mt_dirty_ovs is for, but presumably it should be handled the same. This could alternately be solved by saving the reference to these lists before unlocking, and freeing after unlocking, which would slightly decrease the amount of processing within the mutex guarded code. Let me know if you prefer a patch that does that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10399] New: pw-pbkdf2.so iterations parameter checks for wrong argc
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Oct '25

14 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10399 Issue ID: 10399 Summary: pw-pbkdf2.so iterations parameter checks for wrong argc Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: jj+openldap(a)sft.lol Target Milestone: --- f602563bf4a9512885c8e3488d03b3f812cf42d9 introduced a pw-pbkdf2.so argument for specifying the number of hashing rounds. this contains a bug since the argc is 1 instead of 2 when passing one argument to the module - so the custom iterations are never considered (except when passing a first bogus argument and the iterations as second :) Background: We're integrating the pbkdf2-iteration configuration patch in Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openldap/+bug/2125685 I've also just created an account on your gitlab instance - would be great if it was approved :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10398] New: memberof and refint clash on subtree renames
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Oct '25

14 Oct '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10398 Issue ID: 10398 Summary: memberof and refint clash on subtree renames Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- If a group and its members are under a subtree that got renamed, refint will trigger, and try to update all the relevant DNs. When it processes the group entry, it will issue Modifies to update the DNs of the group's members. The memberof overlay will see these modifies and start trying to update the corresponding memberof values but will only succeed halfway. It will try to delete the old memberof value from the old member DN's entry, which fails because the subtree has renamed all the entries. Then it will try to add the new memberof value to the new member DN's entry, which succeeds. Then eventually refint will try to process the member's. It will try to delete the old memberof value from the new entry, and add the new memberof value to the entry. This modify request fails because the new value is already present. The entry is left with a memberof value that points to the obsolete group DN. The solution is for refint to set the manageDsaIt control on its repair ops, and for memberof to ignore Modify requests with this control set. -- 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 October 2025