[SSSD] [PATCHES] Support for multiple LDAP search bases

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Tue Oct 4 10:55:22 UTC 2011


> 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.


Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20111004/2f86425c/attachment.sig>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list