sssd-devel November 2017

sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org

10 participants
210 discussions

[sssd PR#425][closed] Fix issue #3451
by lslebodn 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425 Author: fidencio Title: #425: Fix issue #3451 Action: closed To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/425/head:pr425 git checkout pr425

1 0

[sssd PR#425][comment] Fix issue #3451
by lslebodn 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425 Title: #425: Fix issue #3451 lslebodn commented: """ master: * add72860c7a7a2c418f4d8b6790b5caeaf7dfb7b """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425#issuecomment-341696973

1 0

[sssd PR#432][comment] CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts
by mzidek-rh 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432 Title: #432: CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts mzidek-rh commented: """ The problem is with multiple users sharing the same email in LDAP/IPA. The email attribute from LDAP is stored twice in the local SYSDB database. Once as the SYSDB_USER_EMAIL and then also lowercased as namealias. The namealias is used for most searches because emails are not case sensitive. The only case when it is not used as lowercase is in the 'by_upn' case. I do not know why, but as I said, I do not plan to change that now. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432#issuecomment-341695562

1 0

[sssd PR#432][comment] CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts
by lslebodn 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432 Title: #432: CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts lslebodn commented: """ >You are wrong. As I wrote in one of the previous comments: >"Just a note, we do not use SYSDB_USER_EMAIL in getpwnam searches. We lowercase the attribute >and store it as namealias, which is then used in the filter." Then why do you always mention email if the problem is with namealias? It is really confusing """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432#issuecomment-341694671

1 0

[sssd PR#432][comment] CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts
by lslebodn 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432 Title: #432: CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts lslebodn commented: """ >You are wrong. As I wrote in one of the previous comments: >"Just a note, we do not use SYSDB_USER_EMAIL in getpwnam searches. We lowercase the attribute >and store it as namealias, which is then used in the filter." Then why do you always mention email if the problem is with namealias? """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432#issuecomment-341694671

1 0

[sssd PR#432][comment] CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts
by mzidek-rh 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432 Title: #432: CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts mzidek-rh commented: """ You are wrong. As I wrote in one of the previous comments: "Just a note, we do not use SYSDB_USER_EMAIL in getpwnam searches. We lowercase the attribute and store it as namealias, which is then used in the filter." The stored nameailas (generated by lowercasing the email attribute) is what triggered the issue for the user in the BZ, not the SYSDB_USER_EMAIL itself. Looking at the code I am not sure if using SYSDB_USER_EMAIL in sysdb_search_user_by_upn_res is even correct (I think the search by EMAIL should be case insensitive), but I am not sure about that and I am not going to change it now, definitely not in this PR, because it is not related. I think we can add the warning also to the 'by_upn' search where the SYSDB_USER_EMAIL is used, even if it is not needed for the use case in the BZ (the user was doing PAM authentication and the code does not get to the 'by_upn' part). I slightly modified the DEBUG message there. It does not need to be that difficult as the one in the getpwnam case, because this time the problem is most likely just multiple users sharing same email and the conflict with fqdn is not relevant. So I have two questions. 1. What do you mean if you say, the patch is not fixing the bug? (I tested it and for me it generated the message correctly, I also tested the workaround that I suggest in the man page and it worked for me as well) 2. If you say the message is vague, what wording do you suggest? If you (or someone else) do not suggest anything better, then I guess you also can not come up with anything better and I will keep it as is. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432#issuecomment-341693096

1 0

[sssd PR#432][synchronized] CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts
by mzidek-rh 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/432 Author: mzidek-rh Title: #432: CACHE_REQ: Better debugging for email conflicts Action: synchronized To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/432/head:pr432 git checkout pr432

1 0

[sssd PR#425][+Accepted] Fix issue #3451
by sumit-bose 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425 Title: #425: Fix issue #3451 Label: +Accepted

1 0

[sssd PR#425][comment] Fix issue #3451
by sumit-bose 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425 Title: #425: Fix issue #3451 sumit-bose commented: """ Thanks, ACK. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425#issuecomment-341688345

1 0

[sssd PR#425][comment] Fix issue #3451
by fidencio 03 Nov '17

03 Nov '17

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425 Title: #425: Fix issue #3451 fidencio commented: """ Sure: ``` diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.c b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.c index 1bb151833..a3b1480aa 100644 --- a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.c +++ b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_auth.c @@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ fail: static struct tevent_req *auth_connect_send(struct tevent_req *req) { - struct tevent_req *next_req; + struct tevent_req *subreq; struct auth_state *state = tevent_req_data(req, struct auth_state); bool use_tls; @@ -690,19 +690,19 @@ static struct tevent_req *auth_connect_send(struct tevent_req *req) "for debugging purposes only."); } - next_req = sdap_cli_connect_send(state, state->ev, state->ctx->opts, - state->ctx->be, - state->sdap_service, false, - use_tls ? CON_TLS_ON : CON_TLS_OFF, false); + subreq = sdap_cli_connect_send(state, state->ev, state->ctx->opts, + state->ctx->be, + state->sdap_service, false, + use_tls ? CON_TLS_ON : CON_TLS_OFF, false); - if (next_req == NULL) { + if (subreq == NULL) { tevent_req_error(req, ENOMEM); return NULL; } - tevent_req_set_callback(next_req, auth_connect_done, req); + tevent_req_set_callback(subreq, auth_connect_done, req); - return next_req; + return subreq; } ``` Patch has been updated with the follow-up mentioned above squashed to patch. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/425#issuecomment-341685353

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

sssd-devel November 2017