On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 17:27 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 05:24:51PM +0100, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 04:35 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (23/01/15 10:21), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 14:39 +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>>I was reprodicing other bug and it took me some time to find out why I
> >>>able to resolve user. RID was bigger than range size.
> >>>I saw just general message about id mapping failer
> >>>[sdap_save_user] (0x0400): Processing user matthewbe
> >>>[sdap_save_user] (0x1000): Mapping user [matthewbe] objectSID
> >>> [S-1-5-21-2997650941-1802118864-3094776726-200065] to unix ID
> >>>[sdap_idmap_sid_to_unix] (0x0080): Could not convert objectSID
> >>> [S-1-5-21-2997650941-1802118864-3094776726-200065] to a UNIX ID
> >>> ^^^^^^
> >>> Default range size is 200000
> >>>[sdap_save_user] (0x0020): Failed to save user [matthewbe]
> >>>[sdap_save_users] (0x0040): Failed to store user 0. Ignoring.
> >>>Feel free to propose better debug message. I think it would simplify
> >>I'd avoid making a recommendation about changing the range size. That
> >>will result in any other domain having all of their IDs changed. That's
> >>not a good situation. We should certainly log this at a very low level,
> >As you can see from debug message it is almost impossible to say why converting
> >of objectSID failed. I have already seen such problem in customer reports.
> >and reasonable hint could speed up fixing of a problem.
> >user issue -> bug report -> requests for log files ->
> > analysis of log file -> advice to increase ldap_idmap_range_size
> >Maybe we can recommend just to double value of range size,
> >but current situation isn't user friendly.
> I think there is just problem with wording here. You
> used "You should..." in the debug message. I would change
> it to "You could/can..." and add a sentence that warns the
> user about the consequences. like "But be careful because
> changing the range size will also change the ID mappings in
> all trusted domains." Or some better warning.
We can also point the user to the man page in the debug message to avoid
being overly terse...then in the man page, we can explain all the pros
and cons better.
Yeah, I like this approach. So maybe the phrasing should be:
"objectSID [%s] has a RID that is larger than the ldap_idmap_range_size.
See sssd-ad(5) for an explanation of how to resolve this issue."