openldap-bugs April 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
144 discussions

[Bug 9207] New: Remove Moznss compatibility layer
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Apr '26

22 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9207 Bug ID: 9207 Summary: Remove Moznss compatibility layer Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For the 2.5 release, remove the MozNSS compatibility layer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 6

[Issue 10266] New: Adopt broader RFC4511 NoD interpretation on lloadd's client side
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10266 Issue ID: 10266 Summary: Adopt broader RFC4511 NoD interpretation on lloadd's client side Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Server side, lloadd has long implemented a broad interpretation of NoD unsolicited response handling: when the message is issued, no new requests are accepted on the session however the client and server are both free to keep the session open if there are any operations that have not resolved yet. The server is still expected to close the connection as soon as no operations are still pending. This seems to interoperate with known clients. Those that want to will close the session immediately, unaware of this possibility, those that also want to interpret RFC 4511 this way can choose to wait for existing operations to resolve. This ticket is to track the lloadd's implementation of the client side of this - when receiving a NoD message, we don't close the connection immediately+unconditionally either but are willing to wait. Related functionality: - if connection was a bind connection processing a multi-stage SASL bind, the bind should fail if/when the client attempts to progress it - clients assigned to this connection through coherence at least 'connection' are also marked closing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10229] New: ldap_result, when invoked with MSG_RECEIVED and a timeout value set to 0 (polling), does not return all available messages until it is called again
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10229 Issue ID: 10229 Summary: ldap_result, when invoked with MSG_RECEIVED and a timeout value set to 0 (polling), does not return all available messages until it is called again Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.8 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- The issue is noticeable when ldap_result is used by the proxy back-ends. It has not affected back-meta behavior, because when a first call is unsuccessful, it retries with a small timeout. back-asyncmeta will also usually call it twice on the same connection from different threads, although this is not a desired behavior. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 10250] New: syncrepl_diff_entry assumes attributes come in the same order
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

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 5

[Issue 9888] New: When using cn=config replication, schema updates can corrupt the index database(s)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9888 Issue ID: 9888 Summary: When using cn=config replication, schema updates can corrupt the index database(s) Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Today I pushed a schema update out to the config node that holds schema that is replicated to the providers and consumers. Post schema update, 2/11 servers crashed in the mdb online indexing function. I fixed this by slapcat the db and slapadd the db. This is important because it was later revealed that on the 9/11 servers that did not crash or have their database reloaded, ldapsearch would return the wrong attribute names for some attribute:value pairs in the database, which caused mayhem in downstream systems and caused replication issues between the nodes. The 2 nodes that were reloaded immediately after the schema change had the only "good" copies of the database left. To give an example, say an entry was something like: dn: uid=joe,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com uid: joe sn: smith cn: joe smith givenName: joe After the change, the broken servers could return something like: dn: uid=joe,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com uid: joe posixGroup: smith cn: joe smith givenName joe It's not clear how deeply this bug ran in the database. It for sure affected 2 attributes used by the person objectClass. Both of the "replacement" attributes were not valid attributes for the person objectClasses in use. Maybe related to the changes in ITS#9858? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 20

[Issue 10308] New: Implement cn=monitor for back-asyncmeta
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10308 Issue ID: 10308 Summary: Implement cn=monitor for back-asyncmeta Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Currently back-asyncmeta has no cn=monitor capabilities. It will be useful to implement some, specifically to monitor targets and target connection states. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9909] New: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9909 Issue ID: 9909 Summary: slap* tools leak cn=config entries on shutdown 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: --- slap* tools set up their in-memory cn=config structures but cfb->cb_root is never released on shutdown. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10296] New: Force a Mac OS full flush
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '26

15 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10296 Issue ID: 10296 Summary: Force a Mac OS full flush Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Mac OS 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 1045 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1045&action=edit Use a F_FULLFSYNC fcntl when committing on Mac OS Hello Howard and Happy New Year, As discussed in this issue [1], the LMDB durability is incorrect when committing. I propose the following patch that uses fcntl with the F_FULLFSYNC flag. The fcntl documentation is on this page [2]. Note that I kept the calls to msync/fsync for simplicity and because they don't cost much but feel free to skip them on Mac OS. Have a nice day, kero [1]: https://github.com/cberner/redb/pull/928#issuecomment-2567032808 [2]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/System/Conceptual… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 9434] New: Abysmal write performance with certain data patterns
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '26

15 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9434 Issue ID: 9434 Summary: Abysmal write performance with certain data patterns Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.24 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: tina(a)tina.pm Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 784 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=784&action=edit Monitoring graph of disk usage Hi, I have recently written a project for a customer which relies heavily on LMDB, in which performance is critical. Sadly, after completing the project I started having all kinds of problems when the DB started to grow. This has gotten so bad the project release had to be postponed, and I have been asked to rewrite the DB layer using a different engine, unless I can find some solution quickly. I have so far found 4 serious issues, which I suspect are related either to the size of the database or to the patterns of the data: * Writing a value in some of the subdatabases has become increasingly slower, and commits are taking way too long to complete. This is running on a powerful computer with SSDs, and the 95% percentile of commits is at around 400ms. The single-writer limitation meant that I have run out of optimisations to try. * For some reason I cannot understand, the disk usage has grown to over 2x the size of the actual data stored, and the free space does not seem to be reclaimed. The file takes up 348 GB, while the used pages amount to only 162 GB. * A couple of days ago it had a sudden spike in disk usage (not correlated to increases in actual data stored, or even to the last pageno user) that filled the disk in a couple of hours. You can see this in the attached captures of the monitoring graphs which show actual disk usage (bottom) and counts of pages as reported by LMDB (top). The bottom graph is total disk usage, although the partition is almost exclusively the database, but ignore the few dips in size which are from removing other stuff. * Running `mdb_dump` for backups takes up to 7 hours for the database; restores are totally useless: I tried to re-create the database after the weird space spike and had to stopped after 24h when not even 30% of the data ad been restored! This alone is a deal-breaker, as we have no usable way to backup and restore the database. For context, this is the mdb_stat output with descriptions of each subdatabase. I have no explanation for the ridiculous amount of free pages, and even running mdb_stat takes a few seconds: Environment Info Map address: (nil) Map size: 397166026752 Page size: 4096 Max pages: 96964362 Number of pages used: 90991042 Last transaction ID: 14647267 Max readers: 126 Number of readers used: 4 Freelist Status Tree depth: 3 Branch pages: 26 Leaf pages: 5168 Overflow pages: 74319 Entries: 111981 Free pages: 36352392 Status of Main DB Tree depth: 1 Branch pages: 0 Leaf pages: 1 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 8 Status of audit_log Tree depth: 4 Branch pages: 309 Leaf pages: 69154 Overflow pages: 6082343 Entries: 2061655 * Audit log: MDB_INTEGERKEY, big values (12kb av). Append only, few reads. Status of audit_idx Tree depth: 4 Branch pages: 261 Leaf pages: 27310 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 2006963 * Audit index 1: 40 byte keys, 8 byte values. Append only, it has less records as I disabled it yesterday due to its impact on performance. Status of time_idx Tree depth: 3 Branch pages: 22 Leaf pages: 4611 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 2061655 * Audit index 2: MDB_INTEGERKEY, MDB_DUPSORT, MDB_DUPFIXED; 40 byte values. Append only. Status of item_db Tree depth: 4 Branch pages: 132 Leaf pages: 10040 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 186291 * Main data store: 40 byte keys, small values (220b avg). Lots of reads and new records, very few deletes and no updates. Status of user_state_db Tree depth: 5 Branch pages: 83283 Leaf pages: 9289578 Overflow pages: 32 Entries: 207894432 * User state: 20-40 byte keys, small values (180b avg), *many* entries. Lots and reads and updates. Status of item_users_idx Tree depth: 4 Branch pages: 203 Leaf pages: 16532 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 1035586217 * User / data matrix index: MDB_DUPSORT; 40 byte keys, 20-40 byte values, *really big*. Lots of writes, very few deletes and no updates. Status of user_log Tree depth: 5 Branch pages: 361275 Leaf pages: 26570347 Overflow pages: 0 Entries: 1035586217 * User log: 30-50 byte keys, small values (100b avg), 1e9 records. Append only, very few reads. I had to stop the restore operation while this was being recreated, because after 24h only 50% the entries had been restored. Thanks to monitoring, I measured this maxing out at 7000 entries per second; the other databases showed way slower rates than this! Any help would be really appreciated! Thanks. Tina. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 9316] New: performance issue when writing a high number of large objects
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Apr '26

15 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9316 Issue ID: 9316 Summary: performance issue when writing a high number of large objects Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.24 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: JGabler(a)univa.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 755 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=755&action=edit lmdb performance test reproducing the issue When writing a high number of big objects we see an extreme variation in performance from very fast to extremely slow. In the test scenario we write 10 chunks of 10.000 "jobs" (some 10kB) and their corresponding "job script" (some 40kB), 200.000 objects in total. Then delete all objects. We do 10 iterations of this scenario. When running this scenario as part of Univa Grid Engine with LMDB as database backend we get the following performance values (rows are the iteration, columns the chunk of jobs): Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 21.525 21.250 21.574 21.722 22.693 21.992 22.438 22.650 21.972 22.017 1 22.262 21.656 22.339 22.914 21.549 24.906 23.862 1531.189 1695.041 1491.255 2 36.071 21.619 22.074 22.927 23.455 27.239 22.640 22.802 633.956 1882.008 3 52.163 21.651 21.571 22.686 22.727 22.024 40.980 22.156 22.429 595.362 4 64.977 21.511 22.519 22.148 22.354 23.292 57.740 20.835 37.680 250.594 5 54.724 21.074 21.200 23.744 22.109 21.351 62.225 21.447 91.292 375.260 6 49.065 21.573 22.309 26.084 21.226 21.248 68.580 22.531 59.338 249.936 7 44.666 21.830 21.009 28.760 21.533 21.611 72.291 23.144 86.281 118.326 8 35.486 21.720 21.840 24.729 22.045 20.877 76.473 21.193 120.387 136.836 9 41.159 23.365 21.721 23.024 21.835 20.972 77.409 21.784 193.885 306.158 So usually writing of 10.000 "jobs"+"job_script" takes some 22 seconds but after some time performance massively breaks in. With other database backends we do not see this behaviour, see the following performance data of the same test done with PostgreSQL backend which is slower (as expected going over the network) but provides constant throughput: Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 36.937 37.110 36.952 37.279 37.580 37.364 37.950 37.390 37.682 37.439 1 37.464 38.110 37.679 38.366 37.576 37.624 37.476 37.412 37.265 37.727 2 36.394 37.635 37.347 37.603 37.402 37.515 37.802 37.898 37.355 37.939 3 37.213 37.539 36.771 37.706 37.055 37.780 37.283 37.488 36.955 37.460 4 36.554 37.557 37.368 37.960 37.070 37.892 37.459 37.857 37.228 37.833 5 37.047 38.164 37.167 37.885 37.268 37.676 37.355 37.572 37.347 37.569 6 37.118 37.735 36.857 37.602 36.717 37.716 37.444 37.685 37.085 38.151 7 36.787 37.647 36.844 37.601 36.934 37.440 37.632 37.291 37.174 37.926 8 36.884 37.560 37.117 37.239 37.034 37.748 37.289 37.635 36.822 37.693 9 37.178 37.496 36.849 37.799 37.289 37.644 37.461 37.622 37.022 37.670 We can reproduce the issue with a small C program (see attachment) which does essentially the same database operations as our database layer in Univa Grid Engine but depends only on liblmdb. It simulates the scenario described above and gives us the following performance data showing the extreme performance variation: Iteration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.686 0.625 0.660 0.637 0.631 0.741 0.757 0.658 0.651 0.614 1 0.705 0.838 0.690 0.772 0.663 3.248 0.605 542.762 1114.374 898.477 2 13.336 1.299 0.659 0.637 0.626 0.712 11.172 0.663 29.833 1161.884 3 26.774 0.647 0.607 0.586 0.583 0.639 24.893 0.629 3.837 423.248 4 32.802 0.629 0.616 0.560 0.550 0.605 31.133 0.625 6.606 195.150 5 34.819 0.623 0.628 0.582 0.564 0.609 32.275 0.607 7.599 134.106 6 26.319 0.622 0.582 0.548 0.551 0.590 28.536 0.611 36.429 160.781 7 21.878 0.814 0.668 0.736 0.614 0.543 24.355 0.626 36.583 148.337 8 4.129 0.654 5.674 0.596 0.566 0.554 7.158 0.633 0.599 48.799 9 30.278 0.608 0.608 0.560 0.549 0.587 29.253 0.606 9.593 128.339 It can be compiled on Linux 64bit with gcc -I <path to lmdb>/include -L <path to lmdb>/lib -o test_lmdb_perf test_lmdb_perf.c -llmdb To run the given scenario call it with the following parameters: ./test_lmdb_perf <path to database directory> 10 10 10000 We built and ran it on - CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) - Linux biber 3.10.0-1062.9.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Dec 6 15:49:49 UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux - it was built with gcc (GCC) 7.2.1 20170829 (Red Hat 7.2.1-1) from devtoolset-7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
15
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 April 2025