openldap-bugs June 2026

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
209 discussions

[Issue 10455] New: Allow handling of empty group in memberof_saveMember_cb()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Sep '26

09 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10455 Issue ID: 10455 Summary: Allow handling of empty group in memberof_saveMember_cb() Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.12 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: roger.j.meier(a)gmx.ch Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1117 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1117&action=edit Protect e_attrs with a NULL pointer test instead of an assert() to allow empty groups In slapd/overlays/memberof.c, the callback memberof_saveMember_cb() uses two assert statements for the sr_entry and its e_attrs pointer in sequence. This makes the service abort on an empty group. If the use of rs->sr_entry->e_attrs is just protected by a test of the e_attrs pointer, the code does not abort and allows empty groups. Please consider to add this patch to the official source. It was now several month in production and did not lead to unexpected results. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10269] New: slap-constraint: Refactor to use a sorted array
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10269 Issue ID: 10269 Summary: slap-constraint: Refactor to use a sorted array Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.8 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- As noted in the comments for slapo-constraint: /* * Linked list of attribute constraints which we should enforce. * This is probably a sub optimal structure - some form of sorted * array would be better if the number of attributes constrained is * likely to be much bigger than 4 or 5. We stick with a list for * the moment. */ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9284] New: Need man page for vc contrib overlay
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9284 Issue ID: 9284 Summary: Need man page for vc contrib overlay Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.50 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: contrib Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- The verified credentials overlay in contrib is missing a man page describing its purpose -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10277] New: How to deal with desync between cn=config and back-ldif DNs
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10277 Issue ID: 10277 Summary: How to deal with desync between cn=config and back-ldif DNs 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 someone deletes a cn=config entry offline (or through bugs in cn=config, they exist, will file as I isolate), the X-ORDERED RDNs will not be contiguous. cn=config papers over this internally at a cost of never being able to modify the entries affected. Right now the only remedy is slapcat+slapadd of the whole config DB, is that the best we can do? When we detect this (doesn't always happen), should we fix the on-disk copy on startup? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 9782] New: regression test its8752 failure
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9782 Issue ID: 9782 Summary: regression test its8752 failure 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 a contextCSN update (new cookie) goes from server A through server B to server C, server C will use that CSN to update entryCSN as well (which neither A nor B did). This fails the initial replication check. The issue has likely existed since deltasync was made possible, a version of this is confirmed at least in 2.4.60 onwards to current master. In principle, it is related to concerns raised in ITS#9580. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10217] New: autoca should support more key types
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10217 Issue ID: 10217 Summary: autoca should support more key types Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.7 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: enhancement Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Currently autoca only creates certificates using RSA keypairs. It should at least have an option to use Elliptic Curve keypairs. It probably also needs options to specify other signature algorithms other than the default of SHA256. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10257] New: Documentation assessment
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10257 Issue ID: 10257 Summary: Documentation assessment Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.8 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: documentation Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1031 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1031&action=edit Admin guide assessment Last month I commissioned a tech writer to review the current 2.6 Admin Guide to see what needs to be worked on before the 2.7 release. I'm attaching the report here so we can reference it. Should have distributed it sooner but Life got in the way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10403] New: Add a configuration directive that uses the OpenSSL CONF API to allow openldap config files to set any configuration supported by that API, and to get new OpenSSL configuration capabilities through that API with no changes in openldap.
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10403 Issue ID: 10403 Summary: Add a configuration directive that uses the OpenSSL CONF API to allow openldap config files to set any configuration supported by that API, and to get new OpenSSL configuration capabilities through that API with no changes in openldap. Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: stephen.wall(a)redcom.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1090 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1090&action=edit Add a configuration directive that uses the OpenSSL CONF API to allow openldap config files to set any configuration supported by that API, and to get new OpenSSL configuration capabilities through th I am submitting a patch to create a new directive for OpenLDAP config files that uses the OpenSSL SSL_CONF API to allow configuration of any aspect of OpenSSL that the API supports without adding specific directives to OpenLDAP for them. When OpenSSL extends that API, all versions of OpenLDAP with thie patch will also support those extensions with no additional code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 14

[Issue 10311] New: Work with IETF LDAP working group to update password hashing mechanism RFC
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10311 Issue ID: 10311 Summary: Work with IETF LDAP working group to update password hashing mechanism RFC 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: --- Work with the IETF ldap working group to update the RFC to make the suggested hashing mechanism be what is currently "best practice" rather than a specific hashing mechanism. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 9272] New: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Sep '26

08 Sep '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9272 Issue ID: 9272 Summary: Invalid search results for subordinate/glued database Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.47 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Here is a trivial test case. Look at the following bunch of glued dit's/databases, declared in this order: | suffix ou=a,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=2,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=b,ou=1,ou=T # subordinate; contains only one (top-level) entry | suffix ou=T # master database, has two entries, top-level | ` ou=1 # ... and this child entry let's query the united database: | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=b,ou=1,ou=T Nice! But wait, what if ... | $ ldapsearch -b ou=1,ou=T -s sub -E\!pr=2/noprompt '' nx | dn: ou=1,ou=T | dn: ou=a,ou=1,ou=T | | # pagedresults: cookie=//////////8= ... BANG! ... | Server is unwilling to perform (53) The problem is the glue_op_search(), which has issues * different parts of code make different assumptions about data structures * different parts of code track state inconsistently * code that looks like a highly probably dead code I mean that likely possible to build another bug-triggering test cases, and glue_op_search() needs not just a fix of the bug above, but intense cleaning and structuring. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 17

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 June 2026