openldap-bugs July 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
53 discussions

[Issue 10092] New: Local logging doesn't build on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 19 Aug '25

19 Aug '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10092 Issue ID: 10092 Summary: Local logging doesn't build on Windows Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- slapd/logging.c uses writev() to write a prefix and the log message together in one call. This feature doesn't exist on Windows. The closest equivalent, WriteFileGather, only works on page sized and aligned writes. On Windows the only way to write as desired is to copy the message into a new buffer first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10140] New: Add microsecond timestamp format for local file logging
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 19 Aug '25

19 Aug '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10140 Issue ID: 10140 Summary: Add microsecond timestamp format for local file logging Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: gnoe(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Add microsecond-level timestamps to local file logging. Format is: "YYYY-mm-ddTHH:MM:SS.ffffffZ" The attached patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the modifications to OpenLDAP Software represented in the following patch(es) were developed by Gregory Noe gnoe(a)symas.com. I have not assigned rights and/or interest in this work to any party. The attached modifications to OpenLDAP Software are subject to the following notice: Copyright 2023 Gregory Noe Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted only as authorized by the OpenLDAP Public License. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[Issue 10372] New: support lastbind_forward_updates outside of the lastbind overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jul '25

29 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10372 Issue ID: 10372 Summary: support lastbind_forward_updates outside of the lastbind overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: lklement(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- according to the documentation for the LastBind overlay (slapo-lastbind) this overlay is no longer recommended unless lastbind_forward_updates is used. Can this functionality be added to the current lastbind configuration recommendation? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10378] New: A default build should NOT trigger asserts
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jul '25

29 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10378 Issue ID: 10378 Summary: A default build should NOT trigger asserts Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: daniel(a)haxx.se Target Milestone: --- Hello OpenLDAP peeps! The other day I filed a bug [1] against Debian's OpenLDAP packaging because the library they ship can assert and abort due to run-time conditions. A library should never abort (in a release build) but should return a proper error code to allow the application to decide the appropriate next step. I was then informed that this build setup is what upstream (you) recommend and encourage by default. So, I'm here with a weak bug that I think you should shoot down and close immediately if I am wrong. I want to make sure that Debian is wrong, and that we can use OpenLDAP libs in production without causing asserts going forward. Surely Debian can just switch off the debug option, run without asserts and not lose any important functionality? [1] = https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109791 Thanks! / Daniel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 10365] New: OOM during replication with a lot of updates
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Jul '25

21 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10365 Issue ID: 10365 Summary: OOM during replication with a lot of updates Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: elecharny(a)apache.org Target Milestone: --- When applying millions of updates on a huge database (30M entries), the server can crash with an out of memory. What happens is that the replication client does not process the incoming updates fast enough, syncprov accumulate the changes in memory up to the point it crashes. The clear workaround: use more memory on the server. Context: the replication mode used is delta-syncrepl, 2 servers, MMR , with MDB and accesslog. My assumption is that it would be valuable to benefit from the fact that we know when the socket is ready for write to actually push data to the replica, which means we can use the changes stored in accesslog and not in memory, while keeping a state of replication. I assume it's a huge change in the way it currently works. There is no urgency, considering it's quite a specific use case, and it would be way faster to slapmodify the changes on a stopped base, then copy the content to the replica, then restart everything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10368] New: Must revert ITS#9849 license changes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Jul '25

15 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10368 Issue ID: 10368 Summary: Must revert ITS#9849 license changes Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: major Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The changes related to license.wml made for ITS#9849 must be reverted. There is only one OpenLDAP Public License and it applies to all OpenLDAP software. There are not two different licenses for release/LTS. No single person has the right to alter the existing license. Currently the website is broken, as https://openldap.org/software/release/license.html is an empty file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 9849] New: Update website to support LTS and Feature releases
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Jul '25

15 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9849 Issue ID: 9849 Summary: Update website to support LTS and Feature releases Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: mnormann(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Modify .wlmrc variable names and website content to handle both Feature Release and Long Term Support release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10203] New: no pkgconfig file included for liblmdb
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Jul '25

14 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10203 Issue ID: 10203 Summary: no pkgconfig file included for liblmdb Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: otto(a)drijf.net Target Milestone: --- liblmdb does not ship with a pkgconfig file. More and more build systems rely on presense of a pkgconfig file, so it would be nice if liblmdb installed oneone. An example: prefix=/usr/local exec_prefix=${prefix} libdir=${prefix}/lib includedir=${prefix}/include Name: lmdb Description: Lightning memory-mapped database: key-value data store URL: https://www.symas.com/symas-embedded-database-lmdb Version: 0.9.32 Libs: -L${libdir} -llmdb Cflags: -I${includedir} Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10362] New: Normalised value confusions in replication
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 01 Jul '25

01 Jul '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 1

[Issue 10364] New: back-asyncmeta should process a notice-of-disconnect and close the target connection
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 01 Jul '25

01 Jul '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10364 Issue ID: 10364 Summary: back-asyncmeta should process a notice-of-disconnect and close the target connection 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: --- At present, back-asyncmeta discards all unsolicited messages, received on the target connections. It should instead process Notice-of-Disconnection messages and close the connections on which they were received. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs July 2025