[SSSD] [PATCH] NSS: Print FQDN for groups with mixed domain membership

Sumit Bose sbose at redhat.com
Tue Oct 29 13:55:06 UTC 2013


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:41:52AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:12:34AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:43:08AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:28:07PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:20:24PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The first patch adds a unit test for getgrnam. I wanted to make sure we
> > > > > > > > don't break anything this close to the 1.11.2 release.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The second patch is a workaround until
> > > > > > > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2129 is fixed properly.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Consider a group entry such as:
> > > > > > > >  cn: subgroup at subdom
> > > > > > > >  ghost: someuser
> > > > > > > >  ghost: anotheruser at subdom
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Currently in order to print all group members as FQDN (which is the default
> > > > > > > > for AD provider), the code needs to iterate over the ghost attributes and
> > > > > > > > parse them into (name,domain) and optionally re-add the domain.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The proper fix would be to store always just the FQDN in the hardcoded
> > > > > > > > form of user at domain
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > sorry, but nss-srv-tests fails for me after applying the patch to master.
> > > > > > > See http://paste.fedoraproject.org/50054/13829949/ for the short and
> > > > > > > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/50056/29949861/ for the full debug
> > > > > > > output.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > bye,
> > > > > > > Sumit
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I should have explicitly said that these patches must be applied on top
> > > > > > of those in "[PATCH] ad: support cross domain membership", do they still
> > > > > > fail for you?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm sorry but yes. Am I missing any other patch? This is the top of the
> > > > > branch I test with on a 32bit system:
> > > > > 
> > > > > d703220 NSS: Print FQDN for groups with mixed domain membership
> > > > > de24e2d TEST: Test getgrnam with emphasis on members
> > > > > bdd6b7e NSS: Fix parenthesis
> > > > > 267adcb LDAP: Check all search bases during nested group processing
> > > > > b0fc582 nested groups: pick correct domain for cache lookups
> > > > > 0335a23 sdap_fill_memberships: pick correct domain for every member
> > > > > 1e3112f ghosts: pick correct domain for every member
> > > > > 8c6d1a4 sdap: add sdap_domain_get_by_dn()
> > > > > c6360d8 sdap: store base dn in sdap_domain
> > > > > 3226d5b ad: shortcut if possible during get object by ID or SID
> > > > > da34cf4 ad: destroy ptasks when subdomain is removed
> > > > > 44e8e96 ipa: destroy cleanup task when subdomain is removed
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, I will test on a 32bit system, the code works for me on 64bits.
> > > 
> > > You were right, one test (that checked gr_mem pointer for NULL for empty
> > > groups) relied on undefined behaviour. I simply removed the code,
> > > it was bogus, we are able to detect empty groups in the packet by the
> > > number of members, which is also what the sss_client does.
> > 
> > Thank you, now the unit test do not fail anymore. Nevertheless I think
> > it would be good to remove this undefined behaviour and properly
> > initialized the packet. If you agree would you mind to open a ticket?
> > 
> > The patches look good so ACK. I only have a minor nitpick:
> 
> Sorry, I didn't express the problem clearly.
> 
> The packet *is* initialized correctly[1], just the code in the unit test
> that parses the packet into struct group didn't initialize gr_mem to NULL
> when it processed a packet that described an empty group didn't work the
> same as in the client code.

ah, I see, sorry for the noise.

> 
> If you prefer, I can amend the unit test parsing so that it behaves the
> same as the client code..

no, I think it is not needed.

bye,
Sumit
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list