openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21365 discussions

[Issue 10100] New: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10100 Issue ID: 10100 Summary: Non-sequential timestamps being logged on Windows Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Windows Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: smckinney(a)symas.com Target Milestone: --- Presents as a dsync during replication. Consumer will log ``` 650af021.2eadd901 0000000000001b40 slap_queue_csn: queueing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.2eaed239 0000000000001b40 slap_graduate_commit_csn: removing 0000000002ac1620 20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 650af021.317b2a35 000000000000185c do_syncrep2: rid=102 CSN too old, ignoring 20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 (uid=slapd-test1-FOO1-6,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com) ``` The entry was not be added. The provider will log messages using non-sequential timestamps. For example, when grepping the CSN from above (in provider log): ``` # This: 650af021.3b3060d9 0000000000001ad8 conn=1001 op=1 syncprov_sendresp: to=002, cookie=rid=102,sid=001,csn=20230920131409.992477Z#000000#001#000000 # and: 650af021.02648749 0000000000001810 slap_get_csn: conn=1003 op=7 generated new csn=20230920131409.040136Z#000000#001#000000 manage=1 ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 8

[Issue 10286] New: ldap_pvt_gettime may result in "not new enough csn" problems in multi-thread case.
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10286 Issue ID: 10286 Summary: ldap_pvt_gettime may result in "not new enough csn" problems in multi-thread case. Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: libraries Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: 971748261(a)qq.com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 1041 --> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1041&action=edit the log of adding two entry which shows the time sequence. I used openldap as krb5's database, and openldap was deploymented in mirrormode. I tried to add kerberos principals via kadmin.local -q "addprinc -randkey principal. slapd log showed that the entry of kadmin/admin was added earlier than the entry of ossuser. But the csn of kadmin/admin was greater than ossuser. In this case, when the two entry began to sync to the other slapd server, ossuser was ignored because of "csn not new enough" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 7

[Issue 10277] New: How to deal with desync between cn=config and back-ldif DNs
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

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 5

[Issue 10269] New: slap-constraint: Refactor to use a sorted array
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

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 3

[Issue 10268] New: Operation rate limiting
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10268 Issue ID: 10268 Summary: Operation rate limiting Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: chris.paul(a)rexconsulting.net Target Milestone: --- Please consider this request for enhancement. It would be very useful for slapd to have some basic rate limiting per connection or per IP. The monitorConnectionsOpsCompleted counts are available in cn=monitor. A dependency of cn=monitor seems reasonable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 4

[Issue 10217] New: autoca should support more key types
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

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 3

[Issue 10086] New: test059 does not set up valid cn=config replication
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 09 Dec '25

09 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10086 Issue ID: 10086 Summary: test059 does not set up valid cn=config replication Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.4 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: test suite Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- For cn=config replication to be valid, the entryUUIDs must match throughout the config database. However, this is not the case when test059 executes. The entryUUID for 'dn: cn=config' differs between the two. Example: quanah@apito1:~/git/quanah/openldap-scratch/tests/testrun$ grep entryUUID: cfcon.d/cn\=config.ldif entryUUID: aea058c4-bf6e-103d-9e18-4582986e9372 quanah@apito1:~/git/quanah/openldap-scratch/tests/testrun$ grep entryUUID: db.1.a/cn\=config\,cn\=consumer.ldif entryUUID: ae9bd858-bf6e-103d-871e-5daccf782d22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

[Issue 9584] New: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 08 Dec '25

08 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9584 Issue ID: 9584 Summary: cn=config replication ops/refresh should pause server Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: slapd Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net Target Milestone: --- Looking into this crash: https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/jobs/7286 The thread in question is running a plain syncrepl refresh while another thread seems to have done the same. This thread fetched the entryUUID attribute of the 'cn=config' entry as 'a' and in the meantime, that entry has been rewritten, with 'a' presumably cleaned up and returned to the pool, so addressing a->a_nvals[0] is a NULL-dereference now. This might or might not be related to the fix in ITS#8102. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 19

[Issue 9972] New: SSS needs READ instead of SEARCH access
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9972 Issue ID: 9972 Summary: SSS needs READ instead of SEARCH access Product: OpenLDAP Version: 2.6.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: overlays Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: dpa-openldap(a)aegee.org Target Milestone: --- I have configured an OpenLDAP 2.6 server with dn: olcDatabase=mdb,cn=config objectClass: olcDatabaseConfig objectClass: olcMdbConfig olcDatabase: mdb olcAccess: to dn="cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" by * search # no problem if this is READ olcAccess: to dn.sub="dc=aegee,dc=org" by * read … dn: olcOverlay=sssvlv,olcDatabase={1}mdb,cn=config objectClass:olcOverlayConfig The content of the tree is available anymously by calling ldapsearch -ZZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "dc=aegee,dc=org" -s sub . When I modify the call to use SSS: ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "dc=aegee,dc=org" -s sub -E sss=ou:2.5.13.15 it also returns results, but ends with ``` # search result search: 93 result: 50 Insufficient access # numResponses: 3 # numEntries: 2 ``` When I modify above: olcAccess: to dn="cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" by * read then the access is sufficient. There is no entry called "dn:cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org", or rather the entry shall not be returned on searches and `ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "dc=aegee,dc=org" -s sub` does not return it. These work without a problem: ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" -s one -E sss=ou:2.5.13.15 ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" -s sub ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" -s one This produces Insufficient access: ldapsearch -ZxH ldap://ldap.aegee.org -b "cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org" -s sub -E sss=ou:2.5.13.15 That said client-side-sorting does work without a problem, but server-side sorting requires not only SEARCH, but also READ privileges on dn="cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org". I find this is a bug: SSS requires read-acesss to data, which is not supposed to be returned to the client (dn:cn=bodies,dc=aegee,dc=org). For the additional server-side sorting no additional privileges shall be required, compared to returning the results without server-side-sorting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 12

[Issue 9902] New: Make max index DBs for back-mdb configurable
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 Dec '25

04 Dec '25

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9902 Issue ID: 9902 Summary: Make max index DBs for back-mdb configurable Product: OpenLDAP Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: needs_review Severity: normal Priority: --- Component: backends Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org Target Milestone: --- From ITS#9895: Currently there is a hardcoded limit of 128 index DBs in back-mdb. Some sites want more than this (although there's no evidence they actually use more than 128 attributes in all of their applications' search filters). For 2.5/2.6 we can simply double the constant. For 2.7 consider making it configurable. Note that increasing the number increases the size of an LMDB transaction structure, and also increases the time needed to initialize it whenever creating a transaction, so it's a bad idea to just set this to an arbitrarily large number. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 3

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