openldap-bugs November 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
228 discussions

[Issue 10306] New: epoll, kqueue etc. are not used when cross compiling
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10306 Issue ID: 10306 Summary: epoll, kqueue etc. are not used when cross compiling Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.9 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hi(a)alyssa.is Target Milestone: --- OpenLDAP's build system relies on running test programs to see whether epoll or kqueue are available, after checking the headers are available. When cross compiling, test programs can't be run, and even if they could, they wouldn't produce useful results because they'd be testing the build machine. Running test programs like this isn't even a great idea for native builds, because the package is still quite likely to end up running on a different machine than it was built for — think about distro packages. This means that cross-compiled OpenLDAP ends up using select, even though it could almost certainly use epoll or kqueue. The best thing to do for this sort of thing is to check at runtime whether the epoll/kqueue/whatever is available, and fall back if not, but this would probably be hard to implement in OpenLDAP. Other, easier, things that could be done to improve the situation would be: • Assume that epoll/kqueue are available if the headers are. It's very unlikely nowadays that a system with the headers won't actually have the API available. • If the AC_RUN_IFELSE checks are staying, make sure that they're all overridabel with configure flags or at least AC_CACHE_CHECK. There are also uses of AC_RUN_IFELSE for pthreads, which presumably have the same problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10310] New: Update pbkdf2 overlay so iterations can be configurable
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10310 Issue ID: 10310 Summary: Update pbkdf2 overlay so iterations can be configurable Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The pbkdf2 password hashing contrib overlay has the number of iterations hard coded at 10,000. It would be helpful to update the module to allow this to be configurable instead, as is done with other password hashing modules. -- 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 10301] New: Use assertion control in lastbind chaining
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10301 Issue ID: 10301 Summary: Use assertion control in lastbind chaining 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: --- Take a setup with a bunch of consumers tracking lastbind information and replicating this back from the provider. If a client sends a lot of successful binds to it in a very short window, the changes might not have a chance to replicate down so each of these binds has to trigger a new modification to be forwarded. This results in a lot of DB churn and replication traffic that is actually meaningless (the pwdLastChange values before and after each of the mods will be the same). We probably can't avoid having to send something, but the change we send could have an assertion control attached that lets the provider skip it if pwdLastChange>=new_value, saving on all of the additional processing (and additional useless replication traffic). -- 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 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

[Issue 10338] New: constraint overlay rejects empty modifications
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10338 Issue ID: 10338 Summary: constraint overlay rejects empty modifications 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: --- If configured even with no rules, a modification with a NULL op->orm_modlist is rejected, despite not being able to break any constraints, e.g.: dn: cn=example changetype: modify # no modifications attached This should at least be configurable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9493] New: slapo-accesslog handling of deletion of multi-valued configuration attributes removes wrong value from list
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 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

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
23
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 2025