openldap-bugs July 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
193 discussions

[Issue 10340] New: Potential Buffer Overflow in mdb_rebalance
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 Issue ID: 10340 Summary: Potential Buffer Overflow in mdb_rebalance Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alexguo1023(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1067 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1067&action=edit Add an early return when `mc->mc_top == 0` In `mdb_rebalance`, we do: ```c int ptop = mc->mc_top - 1; node = mc->mc_pg[ptop]; ``` However, `mc->mc_top` defaults to 0 in many contexts, so `ptop` can become `-1`. Indexing `mc->mc_pg[-1]` causes invalid memory access. Elsewhere this is handled by checking `mc->mc_top > 0` before decrementing. To fix this, we add an early return when `mc->mc_top == 0`. A root page (or one without a parent) doesn’t need rebalancing, so this guard prevents `ptop` from ever being negative and eliminates the out-of-bounds access. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10132] New: manage syncrepl as a cn=config entry
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 27 Jan '26

27 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10132 Issue ID: 10132 Summary: manage syncrepl as a cn=config entry 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: --- Maybe it being exposed through both places (olcSyncrepl and the entry) could be a way to manage the transition (unless we have a way to handle cn=config schema upgrades internally). Uncertain as to how that affects cn=config replication. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 9884] New: Document "set" patterns in ACLs
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 Jan '26

06 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9884 Issue ID: 9884 Summary: Document "set" patterns in ACLs Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The slapd.access(5) man page has this exceptionally unhelpful line where sets are concerned: "The statement set=<pattern> is undocumented yet." Even if it is an experimental feature, it should still be documented on how it is meant to operate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9936] New: slapd attempting free on address which was not malloced
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 12 Dec '25

12 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9936 Issue ID: 9936 Summary: slapd attempting free on address which was not malloced Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: kimjuhi96(a)snu.ac.kr Target Milestone: --- I get invalid free running this on the latest openldap from git, built with CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address" using clang 15. Seems this is similar to https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9912. ./servers/slapd/slapd -T c -s1 -s1 Stopped reason: SIGABRT __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 50 ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c: No such file or directory. gdb-peda$ bt #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:50 #1 0x00007ffff78ca859 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #2 0x00005555556eb04f in __sanitizer::Abort () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cpp:143 #3 0x00005555556e8aac in __sanitizer::Die () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cpp:58 #4 0x00005555556c5dda in __asan::ScopedInErrorReport::~ScopedInErrorReport (this=0x7fffffffbe7e, __in_chrg=<optimized out>) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:192 #5 0x00005555556c72b8 in __asan::ReportFreeNotMalloced (addr=<optimized out>, free_stack=0x7fffffffca90) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_report.cpp:199 #6 0x00005555556c02ab in __interceptor_free (ptr=0x7fffffffe359) at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_malloc_linux.cpp:53 #7 0x0000555555d3efe2 in ber_memfree_x () #8 0x0000555555847d33 in ch_free () #9 0x0000555555a31178 in slap_tool_init () #10 0x0000555555a2e54d in slapcat () #11 0x000055555570901f in main () #12 0x00007ffff78cc083 in __libc_start_main (main=0x555555706ef0 <main>, argc=0x5, argv=0x7fffffffdfc8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffdfb8) at ../csu/libc-start.c:308 #13 0x000055555561011e in _start () at /home/juhee/project/foxfuzz/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:397 gdb-peda$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10362] New: Normalised value confusions in replication
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10362 Issue ID: 10362 Summary: Normalised value confusions in replication 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: --- A lot of code expects a_nvals state to be consistent across modifies and multiple instances of the same attribute (with asserts to that effect), but replication doesn't seem to obey this: Add this assert into syncrepl_diff_entry()[0] : assert( ( old->a_nvals == NULL ) == ( new->a_nvals == NULL ) ); if ( old->a_nvals ) assert( ( old->a_nvals == old->a_vals ) == ( new->a_nvals == new->a_vals ) ); You'll see many tests fail this, the first of which is test043. [0]. https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/14d47146b0442df85bd949b21… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10100] New: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10100 Issue ID: 10100 Summary: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Presents as a dsync during replication. Consumer will log ``` 650af021.2eadd901 0000000000001b40 slap_queue_csn: queueing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.2eaed239 0000000000001b40 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.317b2a35 000000000000185c do_syncrep2: rid=102 CSN too old, ignoring 20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 (uid=slapd-test1-FOO1-6,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com) ``` The entry was not be added. The provider will log messages using non-sequential timestamps. For example, when grepping the CSN from above (in provider log): ``` # This: 650af021.3b3060d9 0000000000001ad8 conn=1001 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: to=002, cookie=rid=102,sid=001,csn=20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 # and: 650af021.02648749 0000000000001810 slap_get_csn: conn=1003 op=7 generated new csn=20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1 ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 9584] New: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Dec '25

08 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9584 Issue ID: 9584 Summary: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Looking into this crash: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/jobs/7286 The thread in question is running a plain syncrepl refresh while another thread seems to have done the same. This thread fetched the entryUUID attribute of the 'cn=config' entry as 'a' and in the meantime, that entry has been rewritten, with 'a' presumably cleaned up and returned to the pool, so addressing a->a_nvals[0] is a NULL-dereference now. This might or might not be related to the fix in ITS#8102. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 19

[Issue 9881] New: Ability to track last authentication for database objects
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9881 Issue ID: 9881 Summary: Ability to track last authentication for database objects 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: --- For simple binds, we have the ability to track the last success via the lastbind functionality (pwdLastSuccess attribute). However this doesn't allow one to see when an object that exists in a database last authenticated via SASL. It would be useful to add similar functionality for SASL binds. This can be useful information that allows one to tell if an object is being actively authenticated to (generally, users and system accounts, etc). Obviously if something is directly mapped to an identity that doesn't exist in the underlying DB, that cannot be tracked. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9829] New: set timeouts in remoteauth overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9829 Issue ID: 9829 Summary: set timeouts in remoteauth overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.11 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: david.coutadeur(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Currently, it seems there is no way to configure timeouts in the remoteauth overlay. For example, if I define a remoteauth_mapping with a file containing a list of hostnames, the first one is checked first. After "remoteauth_retry_count" * "connect_timeout" seconds, (210s on my system), remoteauth test the second server in the list. In some circumstances, it could be nice to set the connect timeout lower (or higher). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 9652] New: Add "tee" capability to load balancer
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9652 Issue ID: 9652 Summary: Add "tee" capability to load balancer Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: lloadd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mhardin(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- This is a request for an enhancement that would add a "tee" or "fan-out" capability to load balancer, where received operations are sent to two or more destinations simultaneously. The primary goal or the enhancement is to make it possible to keep multiple independent and likely dissimilar directory systems in lock-step with each other over hours, days, or possibly even weeks. The enhancement would not necessarily need to include a mechanism for converging the target systems should they become out of sync. This is not intended to be a replication solution, rather it is viewed more as a "copy" solution intended to be used for specific short-term tasks that need multiple directory systems to be exactly synchronized but where replication is not desirable or even possible. At least two uses come to mind: 1. Test harnesses, evaluating side-by-side operation of separate directory systems over time 2. Directory system transition validation harnesses 3. (maybe) Part of a test harness to record or replay LDAP workloads * Other uses? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

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 July 2025