On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 3:55 PM Mark Reynolds <mreynolds(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 7/2/21 9:39 AM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Thanks Mark. That is now done.
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/4825
Thanks!
An interesting side note here: even if I remove the reference to auth02 in
my fixdeferral.ldif and re-apply it, the reference to auth02 returns. On a
whim, I added a third nsslapd-referral and appied that. After a reboot, we
had just auth01 and auth02 again.
Once a backend/suffix is replicated, the replication plugin apparently
controls the referrals on the backends (which makes sense). I'm not sure
why we don't honor the agreement's configuration. There could be a good
reason for it, but we need to look into it closer...
FYI:
Indeed, and in this case the explicitly set referrals should then be
configured in the replica config entry using nsds5ReplicaReferral attribute.
If this attribute does not exist then automatic referrals computed from the
RUV.
IMHO the reason we don't honor the agreement's configuration is that
the RUV elements are generated on their specific supplier (which does not
have the agreement toward itself)
That said, I think that if a supplier provides ldaps port, it should
generate an ldaps url in the RUV rather than an ldap one.
Regards
Pierre
Regards,
Mark
Not sure whether that's helpful, but it sure baffled me.
Thanks again for the help!
*From: *Mark Reynolds <mreynolds(a)redhat.com> <mreynolds(a)redhat.com>
*Reply-To: *"General discussion list for the 389 Directory server
project." <389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
<389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
*Date: *Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:00 AM
*To: *"Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta)" <Brian.Collins(a)coxautoinc.com>
<Brian.Collins(a)coxautoinc.com>, "General discussion list for the 389
Directory server project." <389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
<389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
*Subject: *[389-users] Re: Replica's nsslapd-referral uri is ldap:
instead of ldap:
On 7/2/21 8:35 AM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply, Mark.
Also, thank you to you and the folks at Red Hat for all the work in the
newer releases. Two things stand out: dsconf and not having to run X.
There is much more, but those two are a great benefit.
Thanks, that's nice to hear! Wait until the UI rewrite is done ;-)
So I executed the following, named fixreferral.ldif
dn: cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config
changetype: modify
replace: nsslapd-referral
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth01.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc%3Dcom
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth02.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc%3Dcom
Using: ldapmodify -x -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -H ldaps://auth04 -f
fixreferral.ldif
Then issued: systemctl restart dirsrv@auth04
When I checked, however, it had reverted to:
# grep nsslapd-referral dse.ldif
nsslapd-referral: ldap://auth01.example.com:389/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc
nsslapd-referral: ldap://auth02.example.com:389/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc
BUT... dse.ldif.startOK has this:
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth01.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cd
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth02.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cd
So it would appear to be reverting AFTER the restart. Which makes me
think it's something that it is receiving from the supplier possibly?
Ugh, so the replication plugin is probably rewriting it. Odd that it
"worked" in 1.3.x because I don't recall any changes around referrals in a
long time. We will need investigate it. Can you open a github issue
describing the issue, and how it's blocking password updates?
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/new/choose
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/ne...
Thanks,
Mark
Thanks again,
Brian
*From: *Mark Reynolds <mareynol(a)redhat.com> <mareynol(a)redhat.com>
*Date: *Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:22 PM
*To: *"General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project."
<389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> <389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
"Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta)" <Brian.Collins(a)coxautoinc.com>
<Brian.Collins(a)coxautoinc.com>
*Subject: *Re: [389-users] Replica's nsslapd-referral uri is ldap:
instead of ldap:
Hi Brian,
You can just change nsslapd-referral attribute to use ldaps instead of
ldap.
Now you "should" be able to do that in the console, but I just found out
that there is a bug in the console where we don't actually grab the
referrals from the mapping tree entry. <sigh> Glad I found it now because
the cockpit console is going through a rewrite (to migrate to Patternfly
4). So I will fix that, but it doesn't help you today.
So for now you will need to use ldapmodify to change the nsslapd-referral
attribute. I would say to use dsconf but it is also broken for properly
setting referrals <sigh again>. Once I fix dsconf it would work like this:
#dsconf slapd-supplier1 backend suffix set userroot --del-referral
ldap://localhost:636
#dsconf slapd-supplier1 backend suffix set userroot --add-referral
ldaps://localhost:636
Right now dsconf updates the referral on the wrong entry :-( We'll get
this all fixed up!
HTH,
Mark
On 7/1/21 6:04 PM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Good day,
I am doing prep work for replacing our older 389 servers (1.3.8) running
on RHEL 7 with newer ones on RHEL 8 and 1.4.4.
I have the two RHEL 7 boxes in a multi-master replication setup.
For this phase of testing I have one read-only replica on 1.4.4, as a
consumer to the two current servers. I set up a Linux client to login
using SSSD, bound to the consumer. It works fine except when I want to
change passwords. I was getting "Operation requires a secure connection."
After a lot of digging, I think I found the culprit there: on the consumer,
in "dn: cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config" the
nsslapd-referral uri for my two current servers is ldap: instead of
ldaps:. Indeed, in the cockpit console, the Remote RUV list shows both
servers as ldap:.
But on the two suppliers, the old servers, the referral uri is ldaps.
When I set up the replication agreement for the new consumer, I did it
just as I did for the current setup, so I don't feel like that's where I
went wrong.
Thanks in advance for any pointers,
Brian Collins
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/c...
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_gu...
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
<
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure__;!!Gh...
--
Directory Server Development Team
--
Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure