openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21515 discussions

[Issue 10326] New: SNI passing requirements differ across TLS implementations
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10326 Issue ID: 10326 Summary: SNI passing requirements differ across TLS implementations Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- mbedtls 3.6.3 has changed behaviour to correct a long standing issue where not setting a hostname meant hostname checking was disabled completely (CVE-2025-27809). It seems that how we do SNI vs. basic certificate checking differs between TLS implementations and our logic in ldap_int_tls_connect and ti_session_connect. This is also the reason test067-tls started failing on mbedtls builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 8852] slapd memory use grows continuously with non-delta syncrepl and modifying groups
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8852 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8826] Contrib dsaschema module needs updating for cn=config
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8826 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9739] New: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9739 Issue ID: 9739 Summary: Undefined reference to ber_sockbuf_io_udp in 2.6.0 Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: build Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: simon.pichugin(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- While I was trying to build OpenLDAP 2.6 on Fedora Rawhide I've got the error message: /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libldap.so: undefined reference to `ber_sockbuf_io_udp' I've checked commits from https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9673 and found that 'ber_sockbuf_io_udp' was not added to https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/blob/master/libraries/liblber/… I've asked on the project's mailing list and got a reply: "That symbol only exists if OpenLDAP is built with LDAP_CONNECTIONLESS defined, which is not a supported feature. Feel free to file a bug report at https://bugs.openldap.org/" https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/… Hence, creating the bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 21

[Issue 10364] New: back-asyncmeta should process a notice-of-disconnect and close the target connection
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10364 Issue ID: 10364 Summary: back-asyncmeta should process a notice-of-disconnect and close the target connection 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: --- At present, back-asyncmeta discards all unsolicited messages, received on the target connections. It should instead process Notice-of-Disconnection messages and close the connections on which they were received. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10363] New: Implement a target connection time-to-live in asyncmeta
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10363 Issue ID: 10363 Summary: Implement a target connection time-to-live in 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: --- Implement a feature that limits the maximum time before a target connection is reset, even if it is not idle - conn-ttl. To avoid too many target connections timing out at once, a minimum reset interval per target should also be configurable. So, a configuration of: conn-ttl 5s 5s would mean connections have a 5 seconds time-to-live, but a connection should be reset no more frequently that once every 5 seconds per target. This feature was requested by a customer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10280] New: Combining positive & negated filters doesn't work with dynlist
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10280 Issue ID: 10280 Summary: Combining positive & negated filters doesn't work with dynlist Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.5.18 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: code(a)pipoprods.org Target Milestone: --- The directory contains 3 users & 2 groups. user1 is in group1, user2 is in group2, user3 isn't is any group. Filter [1] matches users that are either: - member of group1 - member of group2 ✅ It returns user1 & user2 Filter [2] matches user that are: - not member of group1 nor group2 ✅ It returns user3 Filter [3] should match users that are either: - member of group1 - member of group2 - not member of group1 nor group2 ❌ It should return the 3 users but only returns users matched by the first part of the filter (whatever the first part, if we swap both parts we get the complementary search results) Filter [1]: (|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)) Filter [2]: (!(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com))) Filter [3]: (|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(!(|(memberOf=cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)(memberOf=cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com)))) Here's my dynlist config: ``` dn: olcOverlay={2}dynlist,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcOverlayConfig objectClass: olcDynListConfig olcOverlay: {2}dynlist olcDynListAttrSet: {0}groupOfURLs memberURL member+memberOf@groupOfNames structuralObjectClass: olcDynListConfig entryUUID: 7df8328a-fd72-103e-82df-6fed25d5f6c8 creatorsName: cn=config createTimestamp: 20240902122741Z entryCSN: 20240902122741.257759Z#000000#000#000000 modifiersName: cn=config modifyTimestamp: 20240902122741Z ``` Here's a LDIF to initialise directory contents: ``` dn: ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: organizationalUnit ou: example-groups dn: ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: organizationalUnit ou: example-users dn: uid=user1,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: inetOrgPerson cn: User sn: One uid: user1 dn: uid=user2,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: inetOrgPerson cn: User sn: Two uid: user2 dn: uid=user3,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: inetOrgPerson cn: User sn: Three uid: user3 dn: cn=group1,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: groupOfNames cn: group1 member: uid=user1,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com dn: cn=group2,ou=example-groups,dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectClass: groupOfNames cn: group2 member: uid=user2,ou=example-users,dc=example,dc=com ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 9

[Issue 10545] New: urltest leaks the parsed LDAPURLDesc and reconstructed URL string
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10545 Issue ID: 10545 Summary: urltest leaks the parsed LDAPURLDesc and reconstructed URL string Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 1489378385(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- URL: https://github.com/openldap/openldap/blob/8afcbe9e04f1a40f03cea51c57418b05f… Description: Source revision: 8afcbe9e04f1a40f03cea51c57418b05f86e8f44 Affected file: libraries/libldap/urltest.c Affected lines: 75 and 125-127 Source-level observation: On a successful call, ldap_url_parse() allocates an LDAPURLDesc and stores it in lud. The program reaches its final return without calling ldap_free_urldesc(lud). There is also a second allocation on line 125: fprintf(stdout, "URL: %s\n", ldap_url_desc2str(lud)); ldap_url_desc2str() allocates its returned string with LDAP_MALLOC. Because the return value is passed directly to fprintf(), its pointer is lost and the string cannot be released. Steps to verify: 1. Build libraries/libldap/urltest with AddressSanitizer or LeakSanitizer. 2. Run it with a valid URL, for example: ./urltest 'ldap://localhost/dc=example,dc=com??sub?(objectClass=*)' 3. Allow the program to exit successfully. 4. Inspect the sanitizer report. Actual result: A successful invocation exits without releasing either the LDAPURLDesc or the string returned by ldap_url_desc2str(). Expected result: Both allocations should be released before returning from main(). Impact: Each successful run leaves two process-lifetime allocations. The practical impact is low because urltest is a short-lived test utility, but the ownership contracts are not followed and leak detectors report the allocations. Validation status: Confirmed by source review at the revision above. Runtime sanitizer validation is pending. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 5

[Issue 9593] New: excessive null check in set_chase()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9593 Issue ID: 9593 Summary: excessive null check in set_chase() Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: grapvar(a)gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Looks like slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals ) can't return null, so return value at line 411 should be treated like one at line 402: servers/slapd/sets.c:399, set_chase(): for ( i = 0; !BER_BVISNULL( &set[ i ] ); i++ ) { vals = gatherer( cp, &set[ i ], desc ); if ( vals != NULL ) { /*402: */ nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals ); } } ber_bvarray_free_x( set, cp->set_op->o_tmpmemctx ); if ( closure ) { for ( i = 0; !BER_BVISNULL( &nset[ i ] ); i++ ) { vals = gatherer( cp, &nset[ i ], desc ); if ( vals != NULL ) { /*411: */ nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals ); if ( nset == NULL ) { break; } } } } diff --git a/servers/slapd/sets.c b/servers/slapd/sets.c index fc7b72c8b..17a6ec2c1 100644 --- a/servers/slapd/sets.c +++ b/servers/slapd/sets.c @@ -409,9 +409,6 @@ set_chase( SLAP_SET_GATHER gatherer, vals = gatherer( cp, &nset[ i ], desc ); if ( vals != NULL ) { nset = slap_set_join( cp, nset, '|', vals ); - if ( nset == NULL ) { - break; - } If I'm wrong, return value at line 402 must be checked for null. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 6

[Issue 8196] PRNG from ITS#7027 (shuffling DNS SRV records) is poorly seeded
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 07 Aug '26

07 Aug '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8196 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

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