openldap-bugs May 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
112 discussions

[Issue 10344] New: Potential memory leak in function firstComponentNormalize and objectClassPretty.
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10344 Issue ID: 10344 Summary: Potential memory leak in function firstComponentNormalize and objectClassPretty. Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alexguo1023(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1071 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1071&action=edit Patch: Ensure the first argument passed to `ber_dupbv_x` is not `NULL`. In `firstComponentNormalize`, the code calls `ber_dupbv_x` but ignores its return value. ```c ber_dupbv_x(normalized, val, ctx); ``` When `normalized` is `NULL`, `ber_dupbv_x` allocates a new `struct berval` and returns it; failing to capture that pointer means we lose ownership and leak the allocation. The same issue arises in `objectClassPretty`. We should follow the pattern in function `hexNormalize`, which asserts that its `normalized` argument is non-NULL before use: ```c assert(normalized != NULL); ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10339] New: config_add_internal() use-after-free on failed cn=config mod
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10339 Issue ID: 10339 Summary: config_add_internal() use-after-free on failed cn=config mod 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: --- If overlay startup/callback fails, bconfig.c:5593 uses the value of ca->argv[1] despite it being freed already. I guess we can just log the entry's DN. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10329] New: Additional issues with pcache, and a test
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10329 Issue ID: 10329 Summary: Additional issues with pcache, and a test Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: aweits(a)rit.edu Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1062 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1062&action=edit test & patches Hello again! Further testing revealed some more issues in pcache [re: ITS#10270]. I've attached an update to test020-proxycache as well. These are based off the current git HEAD. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 10335] New: [PATCH] ldapsearch: fix handling of -LL in print_reference()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10335 Issue ID: 10335 Summary: [PATCH] ldapsearch: fix handling of -LL in print_reference() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.9 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: bolek(a)live.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1066 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1066&action=edit [PATCH] ldapsearch: fix handling of -LL in print_reference() I, Boleslaw Ciesielski, hereby place the following modifications to OpenLDAP Software (and only these modifications) into the public domain. Hence, these modifications may be freely used and/or redistributed for any purpose with or without attribution and/or other notice. The attached patch (against master) fixes a bug in ldapsearch where the -LL (or -LLL) option is ignored when printing the reference comments in print_reference(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10191] New: backend searches should respond to pause requests
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10191 Issue ID: 10191 Summary: backend searches should respond to pause requests Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- A long running search will cause mods to cn=config to wait a long time. Search ops should periodically check for threadpool pause requests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10345] New: Potential memory leak in function rbac_create_session
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10345 Issue ID: 10345 Summary: Potential memory leak in function rbac_create_session Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alexguo1023(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- In `rbac_create_session`, we have the following code: ```c if ( rc < 0 ) { rs->sr_err = LDAP_OTHER; rs->sr_text = "internal error"; } else { (void)ber_flatten( ber, &rs->sr_rspdata ); rs->sr_rspoid = ch_strdup( slap_EXOP_CREATE_SESSION.bv_val ); // first rs->sr_err = LDAP_SUCCESS; } ber_free_buf(ber); done:; // always put the OID in the response: rs->sr_rspoid = ch_strdup( slap_EXOP_CREATE_SESSION.bv_val ); //second ``` The second `ch_strdup` at the `done` label overwrites `rs->sr_rspoid` without freeing the previous string, resulting in a memory leak. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10343] New: Potential Memory Leak in function slap_uuidstr_from_normalized
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10343 Issue ID: 10343 Summary: Potential Memory Leak in function slap_uuidstr_from_normalized Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alexguo1023(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1070 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1070&action=edit Patch: Change 1 to -1. In function slap_uuidstr_from_normalized, the code allocates a new `struct berval` with ```c new = (struct berval *)slap_sl_malloc(sizeof(struct berval), ctx); ``` and then attempt to allocate `new->bv_val`. If that second allocation fails, it sets `rc = 1` and jumps to the `done` cleanup label. However, the cleanup code only runs when `rc == -1`, so the memory pointed by `new` is never freed, causing a memory leak. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10304] New: Unable to remove item from directory as part of transaction if it is the last item in that directory
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10304 Issue ID: 10304 Summary: Unable to remove item from directory as part of transaction if it is the last item in that directory Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.13 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: sophie.elliott(a)arcticlake.com Target Milestone: --- I am running my ldap server on Debian 11.3, with the mdb backend, using the backported openldap version 2.5.13. I am not 100% certain if this is an issue with OpenLDAP or liblmdb, but I have been running tests in the repo and it looks like the liblmdb tests work fine, so I think it's with OpenLDAP itself. I have been performing a transaction, and deleting entries from a directory during this transaction. This works fine if the item that I am deleting isn't the last entry in its directory, but when it is I get a MDB_NOTFOUND error on the commit transaction call and the delete doesn't go through. Here is an excerpt of the logs when this happens: ``` 67a64334.14e1fc32 0x766ad2a00700 => index_entry_del( 108, "accessGroupID=f23de82f-3a1c-4f88-86bb-bb07f9a0992d,o=[COMPANY],ou=accessGroups,dc=local,dc=[COMPANY],dc=com" ) 67a64334.14e21912 0x766ad2a00700 mdb_idl_delete_keys: 6c [62d34624] 67a64334.14e22812 0x766ad2a00700 <= index_entry_del( 108, "accessGroupID=f23de82f-3a1c-4f88-86bb-bb07f9a0992d,o=[COMPANY],ou=accessGroups,dc=local,dc=[COMPANY],dc=com" ) success 67a64334.14e23a91 0x766ad2a00700 mdb_delete: txn_commit failed: MDB_NOTFOUND: No matching key/data pair found (-30798) ``` Please let me know if I should submit this issue elsewhere, or if this is something that has already been fixed in a more recent version. I'm also happy to provide more details if necessary. Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10258] New: test050 failure: connection_close race?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

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 8

[Issue 10162] New: Fix for binary attributes data corruption in back-sql
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

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 11

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2025