openldap-bugs September 2025

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
204 discussions

[Issue 10375] New: [patch] minor patch to const up oids array
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10375 Issue ID: 10375 Summary: [patch] minor patch to const up oids array Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: caolanm(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1084 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1084&action=edit minor patch to const up oids array -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10379] New: lastbind change prevents ppolicy response from reaching accesslog
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10379 Issue ID: 10379 Summary: lastbind change prevents ppolicy response from reaching accesslog 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 "lastbind on" and ppolicy are configured together, the pwdLastSuccess update triggers an accesslog entry (using op->o_time, op->o_tincr), then ppolicy_bind_response issues its own modification and since the time was copied in lastbind, an entry of the same name already exists. This means the ppolicy change is lost (and e.g. won't replicate). Note that slapo-lastbind (=the contrib overlay) probably has the same impact. -- 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 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 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 10372] New: support lastbind_forward_updates outside of the lastbind overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

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 6

[Issue 10366] New: Is 'second database definition & config directives' block duplicated?
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10366 Issue ID: 10366 Summary: Is 'second database definition & config directives' block duplicated? Product: website Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: website Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: truth_jp_4133(a)yahoo.co.jp Target Milestone: --- I have a question about an example of '6.1. Configuration File Format' section on this page (https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin26/slapdconfig.html). I think that 'second database definition & config directives' section is duplicated. Is the second 'second database definition & config directives' to be 'third database definition & config directives'? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10384] New: str2entry2() leaks attributes on error
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10384 Issue ID: 10384 Summary: str2entry2() leaks attributes on error 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 there's error processing attribute values, the attribute list in ahead is not freed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[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 10388] New: ldif_parse_line2 is not compliant with RFC2849
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 29 Jan '26

29 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10388 Issue ID: 10388 Summary: ldif_parse_line2 is not compliant with RFC2849 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: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- RFC2849: Any value that contains characters other than those defined as "SAFE-CHAR", or begins with a character other than those defined as "SAFE-INIT-CHAR", above, MUST be base-64 encoded. Other values MAY be base-64 encoded. SAFE-INIT-CHAR = %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-1F / %x21-39 / %x3B / %x3D-7F ; any value <= 127 except NUL, LF, CR, ; SPACE, colon (":", ASCII 58 decimal) ; and less-than ("<" , ASCII 60 decimal) However, if the value is not base64 encoded, ldif_parse_line2 (and consequently ldap_parse_ldif_record_x) uses isspace() to just skip any white-space characters at the beginning of at attribute value, icl. tabs. According to the RFC, however, such characters are acceptable. In addition, it does not return an error on LF or CR, just skips them. On the one hand, LDIFs are supposed to be human readable, and fixing this issue may lead to unexpected problems (e.g a stray tab being added to the attribute value). On the other hand, the standard does not exclude %x01-09 and %x0B-0C as valid characters for a non-encoded value. How should we proceed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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 September 2025