openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21123 discussions

[Issue 10395] New: Support multiple readers on uncommitted changes
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 14 Jan '26

14 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10395 Issue ID: 10395 Summary: Support multiple readers on uncommitted changes Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: renault.cle(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1086 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1086&action=edit A patch to support multiple readers on uncommitted changes Hello, The attached patch is not meant to be merged immediately into LMDB. Still, it demonstrates how I added a helpful feature to the key-value store: reading uncommitted changes from multiple transactions. I am conscious that the patch still requires some work and uses non-C99 features, i.e., atomics are C11, which could be a blocker for it to be merged upstream. I would also be delighted to merge these changes under a flag/define to ensure we don't impact other users with non-C99 stuff. The main feature we need at Meilisearch is to read uncommitted changes from multiple threads, compute parallel post-processing of different data structures [1], and speed up the search requests. We could have done the post-processing in a following transaction by opening multiple read transactions, but this would mean that the post-processed data structure would not include newly inserted or modified document IDs. Both data structures would be desync. Regarding the design choice, I decided to follow the same design as the nested write transactions: use the parent argument of the mdb_txn_begin [2], and allow the MDB_RDONLY flag, which was disallowed when the parent argument was non-NULL [3]. I find it clear enough that, by calling the mdb_txn_begin function with these arguments, you can call it multiple times (I need to update the doc) to obtain nested read-only transactions from the parent write transaction. ret = mdb_txn_begin(env, parent_txn, MDB_RDONLY, new_nested_rtxn); Note that this early proposal lacks security and error handling. The generated transactions are fake-read-only and actually write transactions that share the underlying parent allocations and data structures. This is unsafe and must be changed or reviewed carefully, but most importantly, we need to add read-only capabilities to these transactions to disallow writes. Using a Rust wrapper on top of LMDB, I wrapped the fake read-only transactions into ReadTxn, which disallows any writes at compile time. However, I haven't checked the conflict database creations or openings. The main issues I encountered were concurrent free of the main shared data structures when the different threads owning the transactions were dropping the transactions simultaneously. So, I decided to implement the equivalent of an ARC to free resources only when the last nested transaction was freed. I can share numbers about how this feature improves the post-processing by 4x-9x or from 1200s to 120s [1]. You can look at this PR, which I would be happy to merge once an improved version of this patch lands on LMDB upstream. I would be very happy if you could guide me a bit on how I could improve this patch to make it mergeable into LMDB. We want to contribute useful features like this to LMDB and not keep a deviant fork. LMDB works great; we are happy about it, and its performance is predictable. Have a lovely week, kero [1]: https://github.com/meilisearch/meilisearch/pull/5307 [2]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/14d6629bc8a9fe40d8a6bee1bf71c45afe7576b6/… [3]: https://github.com/LMDB/lmdb/blob/14d6629bc8a9fe40d8a6bee1bf71c45afe7576b6/… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 10

[Issue 10420] New: Add support for building on Haiku
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10420 Issue ID: 10420 Summary: Add support for building on Haiku Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Other Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alizter(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- The following patch allows for lmdb to be built on Haiku: ``` diff --git a/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c b/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c index 64e5ffd254..ffd8618ffa 100644 --- a/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c +++ b/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c @@ -174,6 +174,9 @@ # endif #elif defined(__ANDROID__) # define MDB_FDATASYNC fsync +#elif defined(__HAIKU__) +# define MDB_USE_POSIX_SEM 1 +# define MDB_FDATASYNC fsync #endif ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10419] New: NetBSD does not define union semun nor set _SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10419 Issue ID: 10419 Summary: NetBSD does not define union semun nor set _SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED Product: LMDB Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Other Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: liblmdb Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: alizter(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- NetBSD does not define union semun nor set _SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED. This means that the union defined when _SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED is set is skipped leading to a compilation error. Adding this to `mdb.c` will fix this issue by setting this variable in NetBSD when it is undefined (and it usually is, I can't speak for the future). ``` diff --git a/mdb.c b/mdb.c index 3e3f529b98..64e5ffd254 100644 --- a/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c +++ b/vendor/ocaml-lmdb/mdb.c @@ -176,6 +176,11 @@ # define MDB_FDATASYNC fsync #endif +/* NetBSD does not define union semun in sys/sem.h */ +#if defined(__NetBSD__) && !defined(_SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED) +# define _SEM_SEMUN_UNDEFINED 1 +#endif + #ifndef _WIN32 #include <pthread.h> #include <signal.h> ``` FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't suffer from this issue as they both correctly set that variable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[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 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '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 1

[Issue 10423] New: It is possible via cn=config to add an entry of one database type with the object class of another, causing OpenLDAP to crash
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10423 Issue ID: 10423 Summary: It is possible via cn=config to add an entry of one database type with the object class of another, causing OpenLDAP to crash Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: nivanova(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- This happens specifically because the user by mistake attempts to create a meta database by specifying the object class for back-ldap. Since these share a lot of common attributes, schema checks do not fail. As a result, slapd initializes a meta database (based on olcDatabase value), but attempts to manipulate an initialized back-ldap database after that, and segfaults. Like this: dn: olcDatabase=meta,cn=config objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcLDAPConfig olcDatabase: meta olcDbURI: "ldap://example.com" While it seems this is only possible for the proxy databases, we cannot rely that schema checks on attributes will fail for other database combinations, who knows what common attributes can be added or supplied in the future, we we have to fix this. The issue is reproducible via slapadd and at runtime with ldapadd. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 2

[Issue 10416] New: Allow setting fractional timeouts in ldaprc
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10416 Issue ID: 10416 Summary: Allow setting fractional timeouts in ldaprc Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.10 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: enhancement Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: hyc(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1099 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1099&action=edit Patch to libldap init.c Currently the ldap.conf parser only accepts integer seconds, even though the internal variable also accommodates microseconds. A simple patch is attached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 1

[Issue 10388] New: ldif_parse_line2 is not compliant with RFC2849
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 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 6

[Issue 10415] New: Allow limiting the buffers for data pending to be sent to client
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10415 Issue ID: 10415 Summary: Allow limiting the buffers for data pending to be sent to client 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: --- In many scenarios it is more useful to limit the amount of data we buffer to be written to the client's socket even if it means that sometimes a connection might have to be dropped abruptly to enforce this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 9959] New: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9959 Issue ID: 9959 Summary: Expose the lloadd connection endpoints in cn=monitor for identification 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: --- ITS#9600 introduces a way to operate on lloadd connections, however it is impossible to identify which socket this actually corresponds to. While we're at it, might also expose the current bound identity there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 8988] Undefined Behavior in slapadd
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 13 Jan '26

13 Jan '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8988 --- Comment #29 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- • 8ba07ad7 by Howard Chu at 2025-12-16T17:33:38+00:00 ITS#8988 lmdb: make all keys and data 2-byte aligned -- 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