openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21518 discussions

[Issue 9577] New: slapd -V should be deprecated
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9577 Issue ID: 9577 Summary: slapd -V should be deprecated Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Sometimes a user's (present one included) ignorance gets them in trouble unnecessarily. The -V option is an example... Normally, when one wants to determine the version of a process, they use -V, or perhaps -v. With slapd, the daemon actually continues to run, which can have negative consequences. The doc clearly states that -VV is probably what the user wants, but is counter-intutive. Who RTFM's before checking the version? -V print version info (-VV exit afterwards, -VVV print info about static overlays and backends) I propose we eliminate the option to allow slapd to continue running after displaying the version. Perhaps we eliminate the -V option entirely, or just make it work the same as -VV. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 10301] New: Use assertion control in lastbind chaining
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10301 Issue ID: 10301 Summary: Use assertion control in lastbind chaining 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: --- Take a setup with a bunch of consumers tracking lastbind information and replicating this back from the provider. If a client sends a lot of successful binds to it in a very short window, the changes might not have a chance to replicate down so each of these binds has to trigger a new modification to be forwarded. This results in a lot of DB churn and replication traffic that is actually meaningless (the pwdLastChange values before and after each of the mods will be the same). We probably can't avoid having to send something, but the change we send could have an assertion control attached that lets the provider skip it if pwdLastChange>=new_value, saving on all of the additional processing (and additional useless replication traffic). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9305] New: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9305 Issue ID: 9305 Summary: ldap_connect_to_host: Return code from getaddrinfo() discarded, troubleshooting difficult Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.4.46 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: client tools Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: minfrin(a)sharp.fm Target Milestone: --- When the ldap_connect_to_host() function sees a failure from getaddrinfo(), the meaningless return code -1 is returned. This makes troubleshooting difficult on a webserver, where the low level printf debugging is not practical. (gdb) step ldap_connect_to_host (ld=ld@entry=0x7fffc4002e10, sb=0x7fffc400b240, proto=1, srv=srv@entry=0x7fffc400b2f0, async=async@entry=0) at os-ip.c:543 543 { (gdb) next 546 ber_socket_t s = AC_SOCKET_INVALID; (gdb) 562 if ( srv->lud_host == NULL || *srv->lud_host == 0 ) { (gdb) 568 port = srv->lud_port; (gdb) 570 if( !port ) { (gdb) 578 switch(proto) { (gdb) 580 osip_debug( ld, (gdb) warning: Source file is more recent than executable. 71 return __builtin___memset_chk (__dest, __ch, __len, __bos0 (__dest)); (gdb) 598 hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; (gdb) 601 hints.ai_socktype = socktype; (gdb) 602 snprintf(serv, sizeof serv, "%d", port ); (gdb) 605 LDAP_MUTEX_LOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 607 err = getaddrinfo( host, serv, &hints, &res ); (gdb) 609 LDAP_MUTEX_UNLOCK(&ldap_int_resolv_mutex); (gdb) 611 if ( err != 0 ) { (gdb) 612 osip_debug(ld, "ldap_connect_to_host: getaddrinfo failed: %s\n", (gdb) print host $3 = <optimized out> (gdb) print serv $4 = "636\000\000\000" (gdb) next 614 return -1; (gdb) The ldap_connect_to_host() function needs to return proper error codes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10278] New: Move away from python-ldap0 in the test suite
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10278 Issue ID: 10278 Summary: Move away from python-ldap0 in the test suite Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- While python-ldap0 has a superior API, it seems the module is no longer receiving any development. We should move our python test suite over to another module that can be supported long-term. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9367] New: back-mdb: encryption support
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9367 Issue ID: 9367 Summary: back-mdb: encryption support Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Need to add encryption support to the back-mdb backend, depends on issue#9364 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 6151] Update cosine.schema to RFC 4524
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6151 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |FIXED Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 6825] unique_uri filter reaching beyond its intended target
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6825 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED Resolution|TEST |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8890] adapt to 64-bit time_t on systems with 32-bit long
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8890 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |FIXED Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 10458] New: improve handling of large entry modifications
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10458 Issue ID: 10458 Summary: improve handling of large entry modifications 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 modifying a huge entry (e.g. a super-large group with countless members), we (back-mdb) spends about 50% of time on memmove() in attr_dup2 just copying the data around. We don't need this, this e_attrs doesn't outlive the mdb_modify that transitively calls it nor do we write into the data themselves. We should be able to tell attrs_dup that it can reuse parts of the original attributes and set `SLAP_ATTR_DONT_FREE_DATA` on the resulting attributes if the caller claims it will take care of the lifetimes accordingly, including any new values it puts in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 6462] DNS SRV records: ldaps ???
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6462 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|TEST |FIXED Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

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