On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 08:04 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 12:55 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 14:51 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > These patches add support for multiple search bases for users and
> > > > groups in both direct-lookup and enumeration modes.
> > > >
> > > > Addresses
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/868
> > > >
> > > > Some notes: There is no patch adding multiple search base support
> > > > for group lookups in RFC2307bis because it's meaningless right
> > > > now. Since the group memberships are direct DNs, we do all of our
> > > > searches as base searches, ignoring group_search_base. There is a
> > > > separate ticket,
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/960 that
> > > > will need to address this, taking advantage of the multiple search
> > > > base features.
> > > >
> > > > Also, while working through this, I opened
> > > >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1006 as I noticed that we are
> > > > using far too many separate transactions while processing
> > > > RFC2307bis (which is likely the cause of the extreme slowdown that
> > > > some of our users were reporting with AD).
> > > >
> > > > These patches don't really work separately, but they've been
broken
> > > > up to make review much easier.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0001: Remove some unused options in a struct
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0002: Fix size return for split_on_separator()
> > > > It was returning the size of the array, rather than the number of
> > > > elements. (The array was NULL-terminated). This argument was only
> > > > used in one place that was actually working around this odd return
> > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0003: Make sdap_get_id_specific_filter() more strict
> > > > Just makes it take const char * instead of char *.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0004: Add parser for multiple search bases
> > > > As discussed on the list, this will the ldap_*_search_base options
> > > > in the form of:
> > > > search_base[?scope?[filter][?search_base?scope?[filter]]*]
> > > > This is backwards-compatible (just use a search base)
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0005: Add support for multiple search bases for users
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0006: Add support for multiple search bases for netgroups
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0007: Add support for multiple search bases for RFC2307
> > > > groups
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0008: Add support for multiple search bases for initgroups
> > > > (user portion)
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0009: Add support for multiple search bases for initgroups
> > > > (RFC2307 group portion)
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0010: Add support for multiple search bases for initgroups
> > > > (RFC2307 group portion)
> > > > This patch I'm not 100% sure of. It may need more processing.
With
> > > > RFC2307, it was safe to have duplicate groups in the list, because
> > > > only the group name is important (and we guarantee that the name
> > > > list has only unique values before saving it). With RFC2307bis,
> > > > I'm not sure if it's safe to add two groups that may have the
same
> > > > name. Comments welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0011: Update manpages with multiple search base information
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0012: Convert ldap_*_search_filter
> > > > Instead of making this a global option for all user lookups, make
> > > > it only used if the search base is passed without an explicit
> > > > filter. The idea here is to deprecate the old separate
> > > > ldap_user_search_filter and ldap_group_search_filter options in
> > > > favor of the new representation (which is closer to the
> > > > traditional nss_ldap representation).
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0013: Add support for multiple search bases for user
> > > > enumeration
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0014: Add support for multiple search bases for group
> > > > enumeration This changes our behavior slightly with regard to
> > > > handling direct lookups that return more than one entry. In the
> > > > old code, we had a bug that would cause SSSD to treat this as an
> > > > enumeration (instead of a direct lookup). This was a bug and has
> > > > been fixed incidentally as part of this modification.
> > >
> > > For the record, because I forgot to mention it in my first email: I
> > > tried to reproduce the issue jzeleny saw in the earlier thread
> > > without success. Either I inadvertently fixed it with the changes I
> > > made or it was caused by other changes in his environment (possibly
> > > the memberOf work).
> > >
> > > I tested it with exactly the same users and groups, using SSSD
> > > speaking to a FreeIPA server (in both rfc2307bis mode and ipa
> > > backend).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > His original comment:
> > >
> > > So NACK after all. Following test failed:
> > >
> > > I tried following membership structure. I have 3 groups: topgroup,
> > > middlegroup
> > > and bottomgroup and 2 users: user1 and user2
> > >
> > > The relationship is following:
> > > topgroup -> middlegroup, user1
> > > middlegroup -> user2, bottomgroup
> > > bottomgroup -> user1
> > >
> > >
> > > getent group topgroup gives me result with no members, the same test
> > > on master
> > > returns the expected result.
> >
> > Stephen,
> > I still see the same error I reported. This time I had time to take a
> > look into logs and I found out that with your patches, a lookup on IPA
> > server is performed on the entire tree whereas the lookup without your
> > patch is performed only on cn=accounts subtree. As a result, the
> > lookup with your patches finds two group records (one in cn=accounts
> > and one in cn=compat) and refuses to continue. I have no ldap search
> > base configured manually, it is taken from IPA server.
>
> Yeah, this is a bug in FreeIPA. If we use autodetection in FreeIPA right
> now, it returns the common search base for both compat and standard.
> It's not an SSSD issue. I've opened
>
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1919 upstream to deal with this.
> In the meantime, please just set the search base appropriately (which is
> done automatically by ipa-client-install).
Well, I have a bit of egg on my face. Jan was completely right, and I
had forgotten to ensure that the IPA provider was picking up the correct
search bases. I've now updated patch 0004 to correct this.
Steve,
I finally finished the review:
#1-9: ACK
#11:
- mention what other values are acceptable for scope (you have only subtree in
the example)
- maybe mention a reference to a document about LDAP filters? Or a brief
description how the filter can look like. This is not necessary, just a thought
to avoid some user questions in the future.
Consider following patches ACKed, I leave suggested changes at your
discretion:
#10:
sdap_initgr_rfc2307bis_send
- how about making one fail/done label and some gotos?
sdap_initgr_rfc2307bis_process
- I'd rather use memcpy than the cycle
#13:
sdap_get_users_process
- I'd rather use memcpy than the cycle
#14:
sdap_get_groups_process
- I'd rather use memcpy than the cycle
Thanks
Jan