John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 09:01 -0800, George Holbert wrote:
> Jonathan Barber wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:32:28PM -0500, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 12:21 -0800, George Holbert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Thanks for the very thoughtful answer. I'm not only new to LDAP but
>>> also to Linux based file servers. I've been in a management role for
>>> the last decade and before then was doing NDS and NetWare for
>>> directory/file.
>>>
>>> We were planning to use a umask of 007 for standard users and set the
>>> sgid bit for shared folders. That's where we thought it would be
>>> helpful to have a group associated with each user. In fact, it finally
>>> made the default setup of creating a group for each user make sense as I
>>> always wondered why that was done. I suppose we'll also need to
>>> activate file system acls for more complex setups as when multiple
>>> groups need varying access to a shared file system directory.
>>>
>>>
>> This arrangement is known (at least by Redhat) as User Private Groups
>> (UPG):
>>
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.3-Manual/ref-guide/s1-user...
>>
>> The primary reason for doing it is that group access to files is managed
>> via secondary group membership, not primary group membership
>>
>> If each of your users has their own group, then adding a posixGroup
>> objectclass to each user makes perfect sense. You may also want to place
>> an uniqueness constraint on the gidNumber attribute as well:
>>
http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/CDS/ag/8.0/Administering_DSPPR-Server_P...
>>
>> WRT to linux, the only gotcha I can think of is that you'll have to set
>> the nss_ldap nss_base_group option in /etc/ldap.conf to an entry that's
>> the common parent to both your users and groups - otherwise it'll never
>> find the UPG's.
>>
>>
>>
> Another way would be to omit the addition of the posixGroup on your
> account objects, and just modify the filter on nss_base_group to include
> posixAccounts.
> e.g.:
> nss_base_group
> dc=example,dc=com?sub?(|(objectClass=posixGroup)(objectClass=posixAccount))
>
> posixAccount already includes the gidNumber and cn attributes, which is
> all you're really after here... unless you want to start adding
> memberUid attributes to your account objects (which doesn't make any
> obvious sense).
>
> You will almost certainly have to modify your nss_base_group setting in
> either case, as Jonathan suggested.
>
>
<snip>
Alas, I'm not sure this is going to work as expected but it could be my
ignorance. I've read the man page and whatever documentation I could
find. It appears it does an & operation with the additional filter
whereas I need an |.
I gather the default is:
&(objectClass=posixgroup)(cn=group_name)
I think I need it to be:
|((&(objectClass=posixgroup)(cn=group_name))(&(objectClass=posixaccount)(uid=group_name)))
If it does an &, I think I get:
&((&(objectClass=posixgroup)(cn=group_name))(&(objectClass=posixaccount)(uid=group_name)))
Nevertheless, I tried all of the following without success:
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?|(objectClass=posixAccount)
Invalid filter - the "|" character does not belong there.
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?|(&(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=group_name))
this broke the posixgroup filter, too!
Also invalid - "|" character
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?&(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=group_name)
this broke the posixgroup filter, too!
Invalid filter - a filter must begin with ( and end with ) - so
(&(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=group_name))
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=group_name)
this broke the posixgroup filter, too!
Invalid filter - (&(objectClass=posixAccount)(uid=group_name))
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?(objectClass=posixAccount)
this broke the posixgroup filter, too!
Not sure what's wrong with this one - looks ok
nss_base_group
dc=X,dc=com,dc=ssiservices,dc=biz?sub?&(objectClass=posixAccount)
Invalid filter - should just be (objectClass=posixAccount)
I did flush the nscd group database between each try. What am I
doing
wrong? Thanks - John
It looks as though nss_base_group uses LDAP URL syntax - see
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2255.txt for more information about LDAP
URLs, and
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2254.txt for information about LDAP
filters