openldap-bugs June 2026

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
67 discussions

[Issue 10274] New: Replication issue on MMR configuration
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Jun '26

24 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10274 Issue ID: 10274 Summary: Replication issue on MMR configuration Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.14 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: falgon.comp(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1036 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1036&action=edit In this attachment you will find 2 openldap configurations for 2 instances + slamd conf exemple + 5 screenshots to show the issue and one text file to explain what you see Hello we are openning this issue further to the initial post in technical : https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… Issue : We are working on a project and we've come across an issue with the replication after performance testing : *Configuration :* RHEL 8.6 OpenLDAP 2.5.14 *MMR-delta *configuration on multiple servers attached 300,000 users configured and used for tests *olcLastBind: TRUE* Use of SLAMD (performance shooting) *Problem description:* We are currently running performance and resilience tests on our infrastructure using the SLAMD tool configured to perform BINDs and MODs on a defined range of accounts. We use a load balancer (VIP) to poll all of our servers equally. (but it is possible to do performance tests directly on each of the directories) With our current infrastructure we're able to perform approximately 300 MOD/BIND/s. Beyond that, we start to generate delays and can randomly come across one issue. However, when we run performance tests that exceed our write capacity, our replication between servers can randomly create an incident with directories being unable to catch up with their replication delay. The directories update their contextCSNs, but extremely slowly (like freezing). From then on, it's impossible for the directories to catch again. (even with no incoming traffic) A restart of the instance is required to perform a full refresh and solve the incident. We have enabled synchronization logs and have no error or refresh logs to indicate a problem ( we can provide you with logs if necessary). We suspect a write collision or a replication conflict but this is never write in our sync logs. We've run a lot of tests. For example, when we run a performance test on a single live server, we don't reproduce the problem. Anothers examples: if we define different accounts ranges for each server with SALMD, we don't reproduce the problem either. If we use only one account for the range, we don't reproduce the problem either. ______________________________________________________________________ I have add some screenshots on attachement to show you the issue and all the explanations. ______________________________________________________________________ *Symptoms :* One or more directories can no longer be replicated normally after performance testing ends. No apparent error logs. Need a restart of instances to solve the problem. *How to reproduce the problem:* Have at least two servers in MMR mode Set LastBind to TRUE Perform a SLAMD shot from a LoadBalancer in bandwidth mode OR start multiple SLAMD test on same time for each server with the same account range. Exceed the maximum write capacity of the servers. *SLAMD configuration :* authrate.sh --hostname ${HOSTNAME} --port ${PORTSSL} \ --useSSL --trustStorePath ${CACERTJKS} \ --trustStorePassword ${CACERTJKSPW} --bindDN "${BINDDN}" \ --bindPassword ${BINDPW} --baseDN "${BASEDN}" \ --filter "(uid=[${RANGE}])" --credentials ${USERPW} \ --warmUpIntervals ${WARMUP} \ --numThreads ${NTHREADS} ${ARGS} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 23

[Issue 10486] New: Look into ranked subtree support for LMDB 1.0
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Jun '26

24 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10486 Issue ID: 10486 Summary: Look into ranked subtree support for LMDB 1.0 Product: LMDB Version: unspecified 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: --- See https://github.com/datalevin/dlmdb for example -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 10236] New: fragmentation makes mdb_page_alloc slow
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 24 Jun '26

24 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10236 Issue ID: 10236 Summary: fragmentation makes mdb_page_alloc slow Product: LMDB Version: 0.9.31 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: aalekseyev(a)janestreet.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1022 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1022&action=edit patch is relative to LMDB_0.9.31 It's a known problem that mdb_page_alloc can be slow when the free list is large and fragmented. [1] [2] [3] I'm not sure it's known *how* slow it can be. In our workload we saw a fragmented freelist leading to a pathological O(n^2) behavior. To handle a multi-page allocation we iterate loading chunks of the free list one by one, and at every iteration we do O(n) work to check if the allocation can succeed. Even small-ish allocations (tens of pages) are repeatedly hitting this edge case, with free list growing to ~1000000, and the outer loop taking ~2000 iterations (10^9 worth of work in total, just to allocate a few pages). Even though I'm sure there are ways to avoid hitting this pathological scenario so much (avoid values larger than 4k, or fix whatever causes fragmentation), it seems unacceptable to have a performance cliff this bad. I made a patch to make the allocation take ~O(n*log(n)), by loading and merging multiple chunks at once instead of doing it one-by-one. I'd appreciate it if someone could review the patch (attached), improve it, and/or come up with an alternative fix. The code in `midl.c` is kinda meme-y, including a contribution from GPT-4o, but it performs well enough to speed up our pathological workload by ~20x (which is still ~3x away from the non-fragmented case). Anyway, the main thing that warrants scrutiny is the change in `mdb.c`: I understand very little about lmdb internals and I worry that loading multiple pages at once instead of one-by-one might break something. [1] issue #8664 [2] https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-bugs@openldap.org/threa… [3] https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 13

[Issue 10383] New: slapd-meta ignores olcDbIDAssertBind if olcDbURI defined after it
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 23 Jun '26

23 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10383 Issue ID: 10383 Summary: slapd-meta ignores olcDbIDAssertBind if olcDbURI defined after it Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.9 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: david.frickert(a)protonmail.com Target Milestone: --- Hi, We are using slapd-meta to connect an OpenLDAP server to another external LDAP server and it works well on first configuration. However, if we want to update any info, e.g. the external LDAP URI, we must replace the olcDbURI attribute. This means that the ordering of the attributes change and this attribute is now defined after olcDbIDAssertBind. Didn't think this would be important, but after this change the "meta" connection stops working and upon enabling debugging i can see that the external LDAP server is responding with: "ldap_bind: Inappropriate authentication (48) additional info: Anonymous Simple Bind Disabled" This seems to imply that the olcDbIDAssertBind attribute is being ignored, likely due to being defined before olcDbURI (my assumption). Is this intended? If so, what can we do to mitigate this problem? Do we need to perform a replace on all attributes of the object to ensure correct ordering, or is there any way to perform an in-place attribute modification without making it shift its position in the object? Example: First configuration (OK): # {0}uri, {2}meta, config dn: olcMetaSub={0}uri,olcDatabase={2}meta,cn=config objectClass: olcMetaTargetConfig olcMetaSub: {0}uri --> olcDbURI: ldap://REDACTED/ou=users,REDACTED olcDbIDAssertBind: bindmethod=simple starttls=yes tls_reqcert=demand binddn="REDACTED" credentials="REDACTED" olcDbRewrite: {0}suffixmassage REDACTED REDACTED olcDbKeepalive: 0:0:0 olcDbBindTimeout: 100000 olcDbCancel: abandon After URI update (NOK): # {0}uri, {2}meta, config dn: olcMetaSub={0}uri,olcDatabase={2}meta,cn=config objectClass: olcMetaTargetConfig olcMetaSub: {0}uri olcDbIDAssertBind: bindmethod=simple starttls=yes tls_reqcert=demand binddn="REDACTED" credentials="REDACTED" olcDbRewrite: {0}suffixmassage REDACTED REDACTED olcDbKeepalive: 0:0:0 olcDbBindTimeout: 100000 olcDbCancel: abandon --> olcDbURI: ldap://REDACTED/ou=users,REDACTED The olcDbURI attribute is shifted to the bottom after a modify operation, and seems to cause these issues. Best Regards, David -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 10026] New: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly)
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 23 Jun '26

23 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10026 Issue ID: 10026 Summary: Refresh handling can skip entries (si_dirty not managed properly) 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: --- Take MPR plain syncrepl with 3+ providers. When a provider's own syncrepl session transitions to persist and a it starts a new parallel session towards another host, that session always has to start as a refresh. If that refresh serves entries to us, our handling of si_dirty is not consistent: - if the existing persist session serves some of these entries to us, we can "forget" to pass the others to a newly connected consumer - same if the refresh is abandoned and we start refreshing from a different provider that might be behind what we were being served (again our consumers could suffer) - if we restart, si_dirty is forgotten and our consumers suffer even worse We might need to be told (at the beginning of the refresh?) what the end state we're going for is, so we can keep si_dirty on until then. And somehow persist that knowledge in the DB... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 29

[Issue 6710] Mods already refreshed on a forwarding server is lost by its consumer
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 15 Jun '26

15 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6710 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=10026 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10424] New: When using more than one syncrepl directive on a single DB, the contextCSN should be stored accordingly to the replication base
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Jun '26

09 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10424 Issue ID: 10424 Summary: When using more than one syncrepl directive on a single DB, the contextCSN should be stored accordingly to the replication base Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: elecharny(a)apache.org Target Milestone: --- Trying to replicate cn=config but parially, I tried to set many syncrepl directives so that each oe of them just replicate the single element it is configured for. Here is an exemple thet replicate the frontend database and only it: {0}rid=004 provider=ldaps://openldap1:10636 bindmethod=simple binddn="cn=syncrepl,ou=accounts,dc=worteks,dc=com" credentials=blah tls_cacert=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/ca.crt tls_cert=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/openldap-common.crt tls_key=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/openldap-common.key tls_reqcert=demand tls_protocol_min=3.3 searchbase="olcDatabase={-1}frontend,cn=config" scope="base" type=refreshAndPersist retry="30 +" timeout=1 schemachecking=off If I have this single syncrepl directive, all is ok, it replicates the frontend data and only this entry. Would I like to replicate, says, 'cn=config' with another syncrepl directive like: olcSyncrepl: {0}rid=001 provider=ldaps://openldap1:10636 bindmethod=simple binddn="cn=syncrepl,ou=accounts,dc=worteks,dc=com" credentials=blah tls_cacert=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/ca.crt tls_cert=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/openldap-common.crt tls_key=/opt/application/openldap/ssl/openldap-common.key tls_reqcert=demand tls_protocol_min=3.3 searchbase="cn=config" scope="base" type=refreshAndPersist retry="30 +" timeout=1 schemachecking=off where the search base is different, then suddenly I get some 'CSN too old' errors, which make totally sense as we only have one single contextCSN stored in the root entry (cn=config in my use case). I know I'm really border line here (and the rational is that I want a partial replication of cn=config because the two servers are a bit different), but I would suggest that the contextCSN to be stored in the entry associated to the searchBase, not at the root of the database. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 10476] slapo-pcache crashes on cached bind attributes containing LDAP filter metachars
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Jun '26

09 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10476 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |TEST Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: commit 0347718de33ee4e3d0c3570166052c362da6080e Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> Date: Tue Apr 7 16:23:23 2026 +0100 ITS#10476 Escape asserted value before pasting into filter RE26: commit 2028cb473609bcdd5cfe71a888586c03d0eb93db Author: Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> Date: Tue Apr 7 16:23:23 2026 +0100 ITS#10476 Escape asserted value before pasting into filter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8901] slapd segfaults in mdb_env_reader_dest
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8901 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |TEST Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED --- Comment #11 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: • 23c07757 by Howard Chu at 2026-06-04T18:02:30+00:00 ITS#8901 ldap_pvt_thread: add _detach() support • 5be6295e by Howard Chu at 2026-06-04T18:02:30+00:00 ITS#8901 tpool: use joinable threads instead of detached RE27: • 2fa6d246 by Howard Chu at 2026-06-08T19:44:05+00:00 ITS#8901 ldap_pvt_thread: add _detach() support • fb41f6a1 by Howard Chu at 2026-06-08T19:44:10+00:00 ITS#8901 tpool: use joinable threads instead of detached -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8901] slapd segfaults in mdb_env_reader_dest
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Jun '26

08 Jun '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8901 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bugs(a)openldap.org |hyc(a)openldap.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

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