On 21 Sep 2022, at 11:45, Florence Blanc-Renaud <frenaud@redhat.com> wrote:


On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:35 AM Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay <r_f@med-lo.eu> wrote:

On 2022-09-16 08:30, Francis Augusto Medeiros-Logeay wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently have been aware of the option "hybrid" for 
> auto_private_groups, and it would really help us to solve a problem 
> where our AD server has a gidNumber set up for users, but no primary 
> group name assigned.
> When set to `true`, it works fine, though we don't want to set it to 
> true because the uid might have been used as a gid for another user. 
> Therefore hybrid is a better solution for us.

From the man page, the private group is generated only if the UID and GID of the user entry are identical:
----- 8< -----
               A primary group is autogenerated for user entries whose UID and GID numbers have the same value and at the same time the GID number
               does not correspond to a real group object in LDAP. If the values are the same, but the primary GID in the user entry is also used
               by a group object, the primary GID of the user resolves to that group object.

               If the UID and GID of a user are different, then the GID must correspond to a group entry, otherwise the GID is simply not

               This feature is useful for environments that wish to stop maintaining a separate group objects for the user private groups, but also
               wish to retain the existing user private groups.
----- >8 -----

Is this your case?


Thanks Florence. Indeed, they are not. Is there a way we can submit a feature request about this? We do have gidNumber set on our AD, though it is different than the UID, so it would be nice to have the group name created.