openldap-bugs March 2026

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
132 discussions

[Issue 9397] New: LMDB: A second process opening a file with MDB_WRITEMAP can cause the first to SIGBUS
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Apr '26

22 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9397 Issue ID: 9397 Summary: LMDB: A second process opening a file with MDB_WRITEMAP can cause the first to SIGBUS Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.26 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: github(a)nicwatson.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 780 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=780&action=edit Full reproduction of SIGBUS MDB_WRITEMAP issue (works on Linux only) The fundamental problem is that a ftruncate() on Linux that makes a file smaller will cause accesses past the new end of the file to SIGBUS (see the mmap man page). The sequence that causes a SIGBUS involves two processes. 1. The first process opens a new LMDB file with MDB_WRITEMAP. 2. The second process opens the same LMDB file with MDB_WRITEMAP and with an explicit map_size smaller than the first process's map size. * This causes an ftruncate that makes the underlying file *smaller*. 3. (Optional) The second process closes the environment and exits. 4. The first process opens a write transaction and writes a bunch of data. 5. The first process commits the transaction. This causes a memory read from the mapped memory that's now past the end of the file. On Linux, this triggers a SIGBUS. Attached is code that fully reproduces the problem on Linux. The most straightforward solution is to allow ftruncate to *reduce* the file size if it is the only reader. Another possibility is check the file size and ftruncate if necessary every time a write transaction is opened. A third possibility is to catch the SIGBUS signal. Repro note: I used clone() to create the subprocess to most straightforwardly demonstrate that the problem is not due to inherited file descriptors. The problem still manifests when the processes are completely independent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 11

[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 10396] New: LMDB: another issue with sorted duplicate DBs and cursor delete
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 22 Apr '26

22 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10396 Issue ID: 10396 Summary: LMDB: another issue with sorted duplicate DBs and cursor delete Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.19 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- In mdb_cursor_del0, in the second "Adjust other cursors" section (after mdb_rebalance was called), in these lines if (m3->mc_xcursor && !(m3->mc_flags & C_EOF)) { MDB_node *node = NODEPTR(m3->mc_pg[m3->mc_top], m3->mc_ki[m3->mc_top]); The node being referenced should be using mc->mc_top, not m3->mc_top. Most of the time these will be identical, but sometimes due to rebalancing, the mc cursor may be popped below its stack top when calling here. This bug was introduced for ITS#8406 in commit 37081325f7356587c5e6ce4c1f36c3b303fa718c on 2016-04-18. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10406] New: Write regression since 0.9.19
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10406 Issue ID: 10406 Summary: Write regression since 0.9.19 Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.33 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ben.alex(a)acegi.com.au Target Milestone: --- I maintain LmdbJava, a Java wrapper for LMDB. We have an extensive benchmark suite covering read, cursor, and write pathways, with isolated testing of LMDB versions from 0.9.17 through 0.9.33. Results: https://lmdb-benchmark.lmdbjava.org/ ============================================== SUMMARY ============================================== Read performance: 0.9.33 consistently outperforms 0.9.17 across all read benchmarks. Write performance: Consistent regression since 0.9.19: ---------------------------------- Tag ms/op vs 0.9.17 ---------------------------------- LMDB_0.9.17 75.790 baseline LMDB_0.9.18 74.909 -1.2% LMDB_0.9.19 81.404 +7.4% LMDB_0.9.20 83.459 +10.1% LMDB_0.9.21 83.237 +9.8% LMDB_0.9.22 83.027 +9.5% LMDB_0.9.23 82.870 +9.3% LMDB_0.9.24 82.952 +9.4% LMDB_0.9.27 82.989 +9.5% LMDB_0.9.28 83.025 +9.5% LMDB_0.9.29 83.063 +9.6% LMDB_0.9.30 83.237 +9.8% LMDB_0.9.31 88.419 +16.7% LMDB_0.9.33 83.304 +9.9% Excluding 0.9.31 as an outlier, write performance degraded by approximately 9% from 0.9.20 and has remained at that level through 0.9.33. ============================================== BENCHMARK DETAILS ============================================== The write benchmark sequentially inserts 1,000,000 entries (100-byte values, 4-byte integer keys) into a database opened with MDB_INTEGERKEY, using a single cursor with MDB_APPEND flag. The benchmark includes 2 warmup iterations and 3 measurement iterations of 120 seconds each. ============================================== ANALYSIS ============================================== Reviewing the commit history, the regressions appear linked to correctness fixes: - 0.9.19: ITS#8406 (xcursor fixup after cursor_del) - 0.9.20: ITS#8557 (cursor_last and C_EOF handling) Both issues added cursor state management overhead in write-heavy code paths. ============================================== REQUEST ============================================== Could you please reproduce this regression using a native C benchmark to confirm it's not JNI-specific? If confirmed, this may be a necessary performance/correctness tradeoff given that most LMDB workloads are read-heavy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[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 10473] New: syncprov leaks response controls
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 21 Apr '26

21 Apr '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10473 Issue ID: 10473 Summary: syncprov leaks response controls Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- syncprov_state_ctrl and syncprov_done_ctrl add controls to the response, but noone cares to free them afterwards assuming they are allocated from the slab. If there are many messages sent in a single run, this takes up fresh memory that's leaked eventually. See its8800 regression test for an example where this happens. -- 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
...
14
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 March 2026