On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:41:23PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 07:59 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:38, Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > please see attached patches.
> > I found out that if we go with approach introduced in previous version
> > (in case of LDAP provider assume SID comes from default domain) this can
> > lead to resolutions of SIDs like S-1-5-32-545 and also SIDs of non-posix
> > groups which in case of disabled id mapping leads to failure which will
> > end request prematurely. 2nd patch should make SID resolution more
> > resilient to handle this.
> The only complaint I have about the code is that the domain NULL check is not
needed, I actually think we should fail if there is a NULL domain in the provider code,
the provider handler should already take care of finding the right domain. If not, we’re
in big trouble anyway.
> Otherwise the code solves the problem — I can’t say it looks great. That’s not your
fault Pavel, just yet another reminder that we need to work on the LDAP provider
refactoring no later than 1.13.
> I tested with both id_provider=ldap and =ad using both POSIX attributes and ID
mapping. Both worked fine in my testing.
> Can you re-send the patches without the domain check? Then I’ll ack.
Sure, attached patches address your and Lukas' comments.
They indeed do, ACK
> >>>>>> Anyhow, find_subdomain_by_sid is misnamed, we routinely use
> >>>>>> to find the primary domain.
> >>>>> I think find_subdomain_by_sid() does what the name says and of
> >>>>> can return the primary domain as long as the SID of the domain
> >>> ^^^^^^
> >>> fwiw, this was my concern, the function is named
"find_subdomain" yet it
> >>> can find both main domain and subdomain. But I won't bikeshed any
> >> ah, sorry, now I see your point. I agree that the name misleading but I
> >> think this can be fixed after the release.
Would 's/find_subdomain_by_sid/find_domain_by_sid/' be a sufficient
Yes, but in a separate patch, please.