[SSSD] [PATCH] LDAP: Inform about small range size

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Fri Jan 23 17:27:34 UTC 2015




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:
> > >>>ehlo,
> > >>>
> > >>>I was reprodicing other bug and it took me some time to find out why I was not
> > >>>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 debugging.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>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,
> > >>though.
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >LS
> > 
> > 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."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20150123/0982c9f8/attachment.sig>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list