openldap-bugs March 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
28 discussions

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

25 Mar '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 5

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

25 Mar '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 14

[Issue 10026] New: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '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 9

[Issue 10205] New: SSL handshake blocks forever in async mode if server unaccessible
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10205 Issue ID: 10205 Summary: SSL handshake blocks forever in async mode if server unaccessible Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.17 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: regtube(a)hotmail.com Target Milestone: --- When ldaps:// scheme is used to connect to currently unaccessible server with LDAP_OPT_CONNECT_ASYNC and LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT options set, it blocks forever on SSL_connect. Here is a trace: ldap_sasl_bind ldap_send_initial_request ldap_new_connection 1 1 0 ldap_int_open_connection ldap_connect_to_host: TCP winserv.test.net:636 ldap_new_socket: 3 ldap_prepare_socket: 3 ldap_connect_to_host: Trying 192.168.56.2:636 ldap_pvt_connect: fd: 3 tm: 30 async: -1 ldap_ndelay_on: 3 attempting to connect: connect errno: 115 ldap_int_poll: fd: 3 tm: 0 ldap_err2string [2024-04-25 15:41:27.112] [error] [:1] bind(): Connecting (X) [2024-04-25 15:41:27.112] [error] [:1] err: -18 ldap_sasl_bind ldap_send_initial_request ldap_int_poll: fd: 3 tm: 0 ldap_is_sock_ready: 3 ldap_ndelay_off: 3 TLS trace: SSL_connect:before SSL initialization TLS trace: SSL_connect:SSLv3/TLS write client hello Looks like it happens because non-blocking mode is cleared from the socket (ldap_ndelay_off) after the first poll for write, and non-blocking mode is never restored before attempt to do tls connect, because of the check that assumes that non-blocking mode has already been set for async mode: if ( !async ) { /* if async, this has already been set */ ber_sockbuf_ctrl( sb, LBER_SB_OPT_SET_NONBLOCK, (void*)1 ); } while in fact it was cleared. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10162] New: Fix for binary attributes data corruption in back-sql
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10162 Issue ID: 10162 Summary: Fix for binary attributes data corruption in back-sql Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dex.tracers(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1006 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1006&action=edit Fix for binary attributes corruption on backed-sql I've configured slapd to use back-sql (mariadb through odbc) and observed issues with the BINARY data retrievals from the database. The length of the attributes was properly reported, but the correct data inside was always 16384 bytes and after that point - some junk (usually filled-up with AAAAAAAA and some other attributes data from memory). During the debugging - I've noticed that: - The MAX_ATTR_LEN (16384 bytes) is used to set the length of the data for BINARY columns when SQLBindCol is done inside of the "backsql_BindRowAsStrings_x" function - After SQLFetch is done - data in row->cols[i] is fetched up to the specified MAX_ATTR_LEN - After SQLFetch is done - the correct data size (greater than MAX_ATTR_LEN) is represented inside of the row->value_len I'm assuming that slapd allocates the pointer in memory (row->cols[i]), fills it with the specified amount of data (MAX_ATTR_LEN), but when forming the actual attribute data - uses the length from row->value_len and so everything from 16384 bytes position till row->value_len is just a junk from the memory (uninitialized, leftovers, data from other variables). After an investigation, I've find-out that: - for BINARY or variable length fields - SQLGetData should be used - SQLGetData supports chunked mode (if length is unknown) or full-read mode if the length is known - it could be used in pair with SQLBindCol after SQLFetch (!) Since we have the correct data length inside of row->value_len, I've just added the code to the backsql_get_attr_vals() function to overwrite the corrupted data with the correct data by issuing SQLGetData request. And it worked - binary data was properly retrieved and reported over LDAP! My current concerns / help needed - I'm not very familiar with the memory allocation/deallocation mechanisms, so I'm afraid that mentioned change can lead to memory corruption (so far not observed). Please review attached patch (testing was done on OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_5_13, and applied on the master branch for easier review/application). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10321] New: slapd garbles userCertificate hex code
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 25 Mar '25

25 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10321 Issue ID: 10321 Summary: slapd garbles userCertificate hex code Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: jnabasny(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- I discovered an issue with how slapd handles hex encoded userCertificate;binary values while testing identical setups between FreeIPA and OpenLDAP. It seems to partially decode the hex, causing any search to fail. This was discovered when using SSSD, but is reproducible with ldapsearch. Essentially, you run a query like this using the hex encoded value of the certificate: ldapsearch -H ldap://10.10.0.94 -D cn=admin,dc=nabasny,dc=com -b "dc=nabasny,dc=com" -W '(&(userCertificate;binary=\30\82\04\85\30\82\02\ed\a0\03\02\01\02\02\01\0d\30\0d\06\09\2a\86\48\86\f7\0d\01\01\0b\05\00\30\37\31\15\30\13\06\03\55\04\0a\0c\0c\46\52\45\45\49\50\41\2e\48\4f\4d\45\31\1e\30\1c\06\03\55\04\03\0c\15\43\65\72\74\69\66\69\63\61\74\65\20\41\75\74\68\6f\72\69\74\79\30\1e\17\0d\32\35\30\33\32\30\31\35\34\35\32\36\5a\17\0d\32\37\30\33\32\31\31\35\34\35\32\36\5a\30\26\31\15\30\13\06\03\55\04\0a\0c\0c\46\52\45\45\49\50\41\2e\48\4f\4d\45\31\0d\30\0b\06\03\55\04\03\0c\04\6a\61\6b\65\30\82\01\22\30\0d\06\09\2a\86\48\86\f7\0d\01\01\01\05\00\03\82\01\0f\00\30\82\01\0a\02\82\01\01\00\b9\b2\3b\be\d1\20\bd\f2\ba\69\e6\b6\e5\2d\13\b0\77\a6\59\69\50\76\4c\07\71\ce\ee\8f\41\ef\04\20\1b\8e\a5\f7\8a\96\0d\f1\89\a5\84\cd\2f\be\ff\9c\2a\b2\bf\99\20\ca\ae\fc\a2\16\df\40\5b\d4\5e\7b\51\a5\b0\dd\bc\e9\c4\b1\e7\89\7c\25\f2\4b\b0\08\09\bd\60\58\c1\8f\af\fb\2a\5e\90\69\37\27\40\61\62\bb\7a\b8\76\18\11\96\2e\45\54\26\b0\c7\ec\92\3c\72\90\52\1a\44\0f\69\5c\b4\f1\98\53\4e\15\86\33\1a\81\ee\70\63\ae\e4\c7\32\7f\92\14\71\9d\58\c0\7d\a1\20\dc\f5\f6\47\29\45\56\bd\a2\dd\eb\4a\17\f2\2a\72\6f\fd\0f\a3\7e\a0\96\de\02\f3\b2\d9\ac\fc\af\38\c9\7a\21\c3\1b\19\4c\bc\d8\11\48\22\cf\18\ec\17\85\51\e9\51\22\49\aa\89\1a\73\2b\8d\40\e9\a9\3a\dd\e8\6e\9b\27\45\09\fd\a4\88\f5\7c\4e\96\b7\82\cd\f6\e2\1e\08\53\38\af\f9\4d\55\9c\79\0f\32\d8\bb\85\83\08\c0\b9\f3\39\7f\b9\7b\a9\02\03\01\00\01\a3\82\01\2b\30\82\01\27\30\1f\06\03\55\1d\23\04\18\30\16\80\14\0d\6b\b6\82\13\0c\a2\9d\91\01\40\e8\59\d6\2b\ec\87\1a\f0\36\30\3e\06\08\2b\06\01\05\05\07\01\01\04\32\30\30\30\2e\06\08\2b\06\01\05\05\07\30\01\86\22\68\74\74\70\3a\2f\2f\69\70\61\2d\63\61\2e\66\72\65\65\69\70\61\2e\68\6f\6d\65\2f\63\61\2f\6f\63\73\70\30\0e\06\03\55\1d\0f\01\01\ff\04\04\03\02\04\f0\30\1c\06\03\55\1d\25\04\15\30\13\06\08\2b\06\01\05\05\07\03\01\06\07\2b\06\01\05\02\03\05\30\77\06\03\55\1d\1f\04\70\30\6e\30\6c\a0\34\a0\32\86\30\68\74\74\70\3a\2f\2f\69\70\61\2d\63\61\2e\66\72\65\65\69\70\61\2e\68\6f\6d\65\2f\69\70\61\2f\63\72\6c\2f\4d\61\73\74\65\72\43\52\4c\2e\62\69\6e\a2\34\a4\32\30\30\31\0e\30\0c\06\03\55\04\0a\0c\05\69\70\61\63\61\31\1e\30\1c\06\03\55\04\03\0c\15\43\65\72\74\69\66\69\63\61\74\65\20\41\75\74\68\6f\72\69\74\79\30\1d\06\03\55\1d\0e\04\16\04\14\e8\11\4b\36\86\c9\7c\a2\d7\4e\ff\7c\13\89\2b\38\8d\c4\ec\32\30\0d\06\09\2a\86\48\86\f7\0d\01\01\0b\05\00\03\82\01\81\00\58\af\2b\7e\fd\05\b9\46\8a\c7\b9\e4\96\42\47\2d\8f\17\01\8e\58\30\95\9c\be\e7\2d\a8\22\64\5e\fd\f5\ec\46\97\2d\88\bc\06\b0\e7\a3\77\a3\d0\b6\da\01\4f\73\f4\3d\c9\47\49\e2\d0\a0\e8\bd\a9\62\fd\6c\de\81\32\9a\33\d5\58\57\d8\c9\47\54\78\fa\69\20\49\11\c9\dc\4f\f4\bc\37\63\28\6a\fd\e2\f7\4b\0f\44\26\90\6c\22\c9\b8\ff\9a\36\05\a3\24\3c\58\73\6f\4b\17\2d\e3\22\30\aa\34\4e\2f\36\24\94\6a\24\9b\bf\ac\e5\23\33\f6\3f\cf\c7\dd\38\91\85\63\c0\61\55\5f\de\2b\e6\3d\13\4f\8c\6a\6a\1e\3b\0e\4a\8c\e9\c3\46\ef\02\bb\63\b7\09\9f\d8\5c\67\4c\c6\40\8f\1e\7e\c8\f0\89\4c\8f\f8\24\63\42\31\f9\5d\5b\2d\cb\78\c3\94\5f\3e\ca\b8\7b\68\9a\6a\09\0c\22\bd\da\39\9f\b7\0f\4f\20\a9\1a\de\d7\8a\31\af\a3\ac\14\d1\ba\90\b8\22\56\31\b1\52\78\73\6f\36\05\88\0b\56\31\fd\55\89\7d\55\8b\01\1d\58\0c\75\03\bd\7c\7b\05\c7\86\15\90\0c\f4\c6\91\d3\f6\73\e9\8f\1f\25\88\32\b2\cb\53\db\91\e4\8b\28\a1\22\7a\38\ac\f5\8b\32\51\d4\9e\d6\e1\15\0d\fb\8f\60\09\e5\0c\dd\d4\19\fe\f7\44\cd\ac\ff\82\94\16\f5\7d\19\57\30\79\96\4b\7b\61\d0\b8\c3\0c\1c\2f\89\7e\01\5e\a0\95\9a\aa\d3\e2\6d\d5\fa\2e\e8\57\5a\b3\45\23\17\40\c9\d3\92\9e\11\cc\c4\31\f2\e5\94\e3\8f\5e\d9\51\92\cd\46\77\33\c8\4b\50\84\73)(objectclass=posixAccount)(uid=*)(&(uidNumber=*)(!(uidNumber=0))))' And slapd logs the query as: Mar 20 19:54:01 ldap slapd[457]: conn=1058 op=3 SRCH base="ou=people,dc=nabasny,dc=com" scope=2 deref=0 filter="(&(?userCertificate;binary=0\82\04\850\82\02\ED\A0\03\02\01\02\02\01\0D0\0D\06\09\2A\86H\86\F7\0D\01\01\0B\05\00071\150\13\06\03U\04\0A\0C\0CFREEIPA.HOME1\1E0\1C\06\03U\04\03\0C\15Certificate Authority0\1E\17\0D250320154526Z\17\0D270321154526Z0&1\150\13\06\03U\04\0A\0C\0CFREEIPA.HOME1\0D0\0B\06\03U\04\03\0C\04jake0\82\01"0\0D\06\09\2A\86H\86\F7\0D\01\01\01\05\00\03\82\01\0F\000\82\01\0A\02\82\01\01\00\B9\B2;\BE\D1 \BD\F2\BAi\E6\B6\E5-\13\B0w\A6YiPvL\07q\CE\EE\8FA\EF\04 \1B\8E\A5\F7\8A\96\0D\F1\89\A5\84\CD/\BE\FF\9C\2A\B2\BF\99 \CA\AE\FC\A2\16\DF@[\D4^{Q\A5\B0\DD\BC\E9\C4\B1\E7\89|%\F2K\B0\08\09\BD`X\C1\8F\AF\FB\2A^\90i7'@ab\BBz\B8v\18\11\96.ET&\B0\C7\EC\92<r\90R\1AD\0Fi\5C\B4\F1\98SN\15\863\1A\81\EEpc\AE\E4\C72\7F\92\14q\9DX\C0}\A1 \DC\F5\F6G\29EV\BD\A2\DD\EBJ\17\F2\2Aro\FD\0F\A3~\A0\96\DE\02\F3\B2\D9\AC\FC\AF8\C9z!\C3\1B\19L\BC\D8\11H"\CF\18\EC\17\85Q\E9Q"I\AA\89\1As+\8D@\E9\A9:\DD\E8n\9B'E\09\FD\A4\88\F5|N\96\B7\82\CD\F6\E2\1E\08S8\AF\F9MU\9Cy\0F2\D8\BB\85\83\08\C0\B9\F39\7F\B9{\A9\02\03\01\00\01\A3\82\01+0\82\01'0\1F\06\03U\1D#\04\180\16\80\14\0Dk\B6\82\13\0C\A2\9D\91\01@\E8Y\D6+\EC\87\1A\F060>\06\08+\06\01\05\05\07\01\01\042000.\06\08+\06\01\05\05\070\01\86"http://ipa-ca.freeipa.home/ca/ocsp0\0E\06\03U\1D\0F\01\01\FF\04\04\03\02\04… Authority0\1D\06\03U\1D\0E\04\16\04\14\E8\11K6\86\C9|\A2\D7N\FF|\13\89+8\8D\C4\EC20\0D\06\09\2A\86H\86\F7\0D\01\01\0B\05\00\03\82\01\81\00X\AF+~\FD\05\B9F\8A\C7\B9\E4\96BG-\8F\17\01\8EX0\95\9C\BE\E7-\A8"d^\FD\F5\ECF\97-\88\BC\06\B0\E7\A3w\A3\D0\B6\DA\01Os\F4=\C9GI\E2\D0\A0\E8\BD\A9b\FDl\DE\812\9A3\D5XW\D8\C9GTx\FAi I\11\C9\DCO\F4\BC7c\28j\FD\E2\F7K\0FD&\90l"\C9\B8\FF\9A6\05\A3$<XsoK\17-\E3"0\AA4N/6$\94j$\9B\BF\AC\E5#3\F6?\CF\C7\DD8\91\85c\C0aU_\DE+\E6=\13O\8Cjj\1E;\0EJ\8C\E9\C3F\EF\02\BBc\B7\09\9F\D8\5CgL\C6@\8F\1E~\C8\F0\89L\8F\F8$cB1\F9][-\CBx\C3\94_>\CA\B8{h\9Aj\09\0C"\BD\DA9\9F\B7\0FO \A9\1A\DE\D7\8A1\AF\A3\AC\14\D1\BA\90\B8"V1\B1Rxso6\05\88\0BV1\FDU\89}U\8B\01\1DX\0Cu\03\BD|{\05\C7\86\15\90\0C\F4\C6\91\D3\F6s\E9\8F\1F%\882\B2\CBS\DB\91\E4\8B\28\A1"z8\AC\F5\8B2Q\D4\9E\D6\E1\15\0D\FB\8F`\09\E5\0C\DD\D4\19\FE\F7D\CD\AC\FF\82\94\16\F5}\19W0y\96K{a\D0\B8\C3\0C\1C/\89~\01^\A0\95\9A\AA\D3\E2m\D5\FA.\E8WZ\B3E#\17@\C9\D3\92\9E\11\CC\C41\F2\E5\94\E3\8F^\D9Q\92\CDFw3\C8KP\84s)(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=*)(&(uidNumber=*)(!(uidNumber=0))))" Some of the hex has been decoded into readable strings, which causes the search to fail. Running the same search on FreeIPA with an identical user entry returns the entry correctly. I'm happy to provide more logs/details if needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

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

25 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901 --- Comment #3 from requate(a)univention.de <requate(a)univention.de> --- Created attachment 1060 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1060&action=edit slapschema-continuemode-and-preserve-rc.patch This extended version of the patch additionally preserves a non-zero return code even in combination with the option "-c". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

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

25 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901 --- Comment #2 from requate(a)univention.de <requate(a)univention.de> --- Created attachment 1059 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1059&action=edit slapschema-continuemode.patch If the last object checked by entry_schema_check() has a problem, then slapschema returns the error code of that problem. But if there is a good object check after that, then it returns 0. That is not ideal. The tool offers the option "-c" to activate a "continuemode". The man page states "Enable continue (ignore errors) mode" and it is a bit surprising that the default behavior is different for the the return code of the main check. Also, while the message `# (65) Object class violation: unrecognized objectClass 'foo'` is output to stdout, the messages `67e293be UNKNOWN attributeDescription "BAR" inserted.` are actually output to stderr. They seem related, maybe it would be more consistent to output them to the same channel. The attached patch just proposes to exit the check loop in case entry_schema_check() fails and the option "-c" was not given. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10316] New: build/lib/mdb.c:5882: Assertion 'IS_BRANCH(mc->mc_pg[mc->mc_top])' failed in mdb_cursor_sibling()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Mar '25

11 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10316 Issue ID: 10316 Summary: build/lib/mdb.c:5882: Assertion 'IS_BRANCH(mc->mc_pg[mc->mc_top])' failed in mdb_cursor_sibling() Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: stefan(a)konink.de Target Milestone: --- I am developing ETL software in Python and I am using lmdb as backend. For this I am using https://github.com/jnwatson/py-lmdb In this big process I am resizing the map_size dynamically. I would say it is certainly possible that I am reading at the same time. I end up in the following error: build/lib/mdb.c:5882: Assertion 'IS_BRANCH(mc->mc_pg[mc->mc_top])' failed in mdb_cursor_sibling() I ran my application again with a predetermined map size, and it did not assert. Since it is a single shot, I don't know if I can be certain that it therefore does not happen. When searching for it I found the following issue from 2017, suggesting it can be reproduced when running the performance test. https://github.com/bnclabs/dbperf/issues/1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10315] Re-Usage of Message IDs of async search blocks all available connections
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 11 Mar '25

11 Mar '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10315 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs March 2025