-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/11/2013 03:33 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
On 11/04/13 19:50, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 02:30 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On 11/04/13 18:49, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2013 10:00 AM, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/13 11:39, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 08:15:14PM +0100, Rowland Penny
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/13 19:46, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2013 02:40 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/13 19:00, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 05:36:32PM +0100, Rowland
>>>>>>>>> Penny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/13 17:05, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday 05 April 2013 15:54:41 Rowland
>>>>>>>>>>> Penny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/04/13 15:35, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:20:44AM
+0100,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/13 22:39, Jakub Hrozek
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at
01:42:46PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the AD provider
you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be
needing any of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options below. The AD
provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should just default
to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a reason you
are using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> password binds and
not GSSAPI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I have removed all
the lines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you suggested and getent
stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working, examining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/var/log/sssd/sssd_DOMAIN.log gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the reason:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Tue Apr 2 12:52:55
2013)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [resolve_srv_send]
(0x0400): SRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution of service
'AD'. Will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use DNS discovery domain
'DOMAIN'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Tue Apr 2 12:52:55
2013)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [resolve_srv_cont]
(0x0100):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searching for servers via
SRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
'_ldap._tcp.DOMAIN' (Tue Apr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 12:52:55 2013)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [resolv_getsrv_send]
(0x0100):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trying to resolve SRV
record of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'_ldap._tcp.DOMAIN' (Tue Apr 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:52:55 2013)
[sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[request_watch_destructor]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0x0400): Deleting
request watch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Tue Apr 2 12:52:55
2013)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [resolve_srv_done]
(0x0020): SRV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query failed: [Domain
name not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found] (Tue Apr 2
12:52:55 2013)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [fo_set_port_status]
(0x0100):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marking port 0 of server
'(no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name)' as 'not
working' (Tue Apr 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:52:55 2013)
[sssd[be[DOMAIN]]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [set_srv_data_status]
(0x0100):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marking SRV lookup of
service 'AD'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as 'not
resolved'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is trying to look up
the samba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain name instead of
the the DNS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain.name, re-adding
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following line cures
this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dns_discovery_domain =
domain.lan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, this is interesting.
Does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of dns_discovery_domain
differ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the value of ad_domain?
If not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I would consider it a
bug.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must have misunderstood you,
because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I turned off 'ad_domain =
domain.lan'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have now turned it back on
again and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned off the
dns_discovery_domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line and it still works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rowland
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think there are two
options: 1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep using the ID
mapping and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tailor the
configuration of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID mapper in the SSSD
so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates the same
output as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winbind mapper.
We've done this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, it's not
the nicest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
configuration, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What sssd ID mapping
seems to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, get the last part of
the SID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and add a number to the
front of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, is this correct? and
if so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where does the number
come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is this the way
Windows does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct, The first number is
a hashed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of the domain part of
the SID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the "last part of
the SID" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually called the RID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check if setting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ldap_idmap_autorid_compat to
True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would yield the same IDs as
winbind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? (Sorry I don't have
a box with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winbind handy and I always
forget the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tried it and no it
wouldn't,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with S3 winbind I got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid=21105(user)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gid=20513(domain_users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups=20513(domain_users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With the line added into
sssd.conf and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winbind turned off, I now get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid=201105(user)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gid=200513(domain_users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups=200513(domain_users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say 'the
same output as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the winbind mapper',
which winbind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you refering to, the
winbind on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Samba 4 server or the
winbind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Samba 3 client?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both actually. You really
want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the IDs consistent
everywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the problem, the built
into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> samba4 winbind returns different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uid=3000016(DOMAIN\user)
gid=100(users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups=100(users)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Switch to using
POSIX IDs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of mapping
them from SIDs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with both winbind and
SSSD. All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that should be needed
on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSSD side is set:
ldap_id_mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = False to sssd.conf
and restart
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSSD (you might
need to rm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cache as SSSD
doesn't really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle UID/GID
changes very well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the winbind side,
I'm a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuzzy on the details,
but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe this could be
done with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "winbind nss
info" configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is the
use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winbind, I cannot get the
idmap_ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backend to work at all,
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idmap_rid gives a
different uid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the Samba 4 server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which mapper does the S4
server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not know, I only know it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from the S3 winbind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where I am 1)
sounds like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier to implement
since all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing is
sssd.conf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am being to think that
the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward is to stop
winbind on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samba 4 server and use
sssd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a noble goal and one
which we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to accomplish in the
upcoming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10 release, but it was
postponed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1534
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Samba server seems
to be leveraging an interface only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> winbind
is able to serve at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment to convert SIDs to
GIDs on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the server side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know all the
details, sorry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe on of the Samba
developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lurking on this list would
chime in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand this, by
removing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the S4 winbind links on the
server and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installing sssd 1.9.4, I appear
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have got it to work, I now have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent uid's &
gid's without any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real effort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had a short chat with the Samba Red
Hat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintainer Andreas Schneider (CC-ed)
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he advised against removing winbind
from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the server, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he'll provide a more
qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer than I can :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, on Samba 4 you get 2 winbind's,
one is
>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the S3 code base and I think
that
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am right in saying that it will not
start
>>>>>>>>>>>> if the samba (AD) daemon is run.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's correct and the DC needs the
'builtin'
>>>>>>>>>>> winbind daemon for the DC to function. It
>>>>>>>>>>> will not work with the s3fs winbind.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other is built into the samba daemon
>>>>>>>>>>>> and requires the creation of a couple of
>>>>>>>>>>>> symlinks to use winbind in
/etc/nsswitch.
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean here?
>>>>>>>>>> If, as I do, you compile Samba 4, you have to
>>>>>>>>>> create a couple of symlinks:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ln -s /usr/local/samba/lib/libnss_winbind.so.2
>>>>>>>>>> /lib/libnss_winbind.so ln -s
>>>>>>>>>> /lib/libnss_winbind.so
>>>>>>>>>> /lib/libnss_winbind.so.2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without these, you do not get any domain users
>>>>>>>>>> etc from getent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truth be told, I've never compiled Samba from
>>>>>>>>> scratch myself, but the nssswitch libraries must
>>>>>>>>> be installed to /lib{,64}, are you sure there
>>>>>>>>> isn't just a configure time switch for that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are talking about libnss_winbind.so, then as
>>>>>>>> far as I know, no there isn't, you just have to
>>>>>>>> create the two symlinks and add 'winbind' to the
>>>>>>>> passwd & group lines in /etc/nsswitch.conf and it
>>>>>>>> works. If you do add the links etc then sssd does
>>>>>>>> not work on the S4 server. As sssd seems to work
>>>>>>>> better than winbind then I shall continue to use
>>>>>>>> it, but what I cannot understand is why do I seem
>>>>>>>> to get the feeling that you are trying to talk me
>>>>>>>> out of using sssd.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rowland
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the samba file server or DC there other things
>>>>>>> that file server gets directly from winbind that sssd
>>>>>>> does not have yet. We are concerned that this would
>>>>>>> cause issues for you that you yet have not seen. That
>>>>>>> would be the reason. If you are willing to continue
>>>>>>> trying and are prepared to encounter issues and
>>>>>>> report back then we are OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you give me some idea what sssd doesn't do that
>>>>>> winbind does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can see, I get (via getent): uidNumber
>>>>>> gidNumber unixhomedirectory loginShell
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is an interface for SID to name conversion in Samba
>>>>> and currently only winbind implements the interface. We
>>>>> wanted to have a compatible implementation done for 1.10
>>>>> but we're probably not going to make it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know exactly from the top of my head what
>>>>> functionality the samba server uses this interface for.
>>>>> Maybe Andreas or Sumit know?
>>>>>
>>>>>> which as far as I can see is what winbind would give
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can create directories & files and change ownership
>>>>>> to a domain user &/or domain group, or in other words,
>>>>>> I cannot tell the difference between using winbind or
>>>>>> sssd except for the constant uidnumbers & gidnumbers.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sssd-users mailing list
>>>>> sssd-users(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>>>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
OK, I admit it, I was wrong, you cannot use sssd ad mode on a
Samba 4
>>>> server instead of winbind.
>>>>
>>>> Everything seemed to work ok until I tried to use cifs to
>>>> mount the users homedirectory from the S4 server. It
>>>> mounted ok and if you checked the user permissions on the
>>>> the server & client they matched, both names & uid's.
>>>> Getfacl showed that the user should be able to write to the
>>>> share, only the user couldn't, the user had no rights to
>>>> their own directory. I can only assume that cifs somehow
>>>> uses winbind on the server and gets the uidnumbers that S4
>>>> winbind gives, these are different to what sssd comes up
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> What (so far) seems to work is: use winbind on the S4
>>>> server, set the uidNumber & gidNumber etc in the S4 LDAP
>>>> for the users, no need for posix objectclasses. Then set up
>>>> sssd on the linux clients to pull from ldap using
>>>> kerberos.
>>>>
>>>> Rowland
>>>>
>>> Yes that would work however another scenario that we expect
>>> to more or less work is: S4 DS + winbind on the server side
>>> using rid ID mapping algorythm, no UID/GID in LDAP, client is
>>> SSSD 1.9 with AD back end and id mapping used.
>> You have lost me there, are you referring to the S4 winbind
>> built into the S4 samba daemon?
> Sorry for typo, if confused the whole thing. I meant "Samba FS +
> winbind"
>
>> if so, there does not seem to be any documentation anywhere
>> that I can find. As I said, I tried to get winbind on the
>> clients working with both id_map rid & ad backends and could
>> not get either to work. Whatever I use, has to come up with the
>> same UID/GID that the S4 winbind does, because that is what the
>> unix server seems to require. In fact I will state it plainly,
>> whatever is used must produce exactly the same Unix information
>> as the S4 winbind.
> Correct and I am curious why it did not work because we used the
> same algorithm in SSSD id map translation as winbind rid uses
> with only one difference - SSSD can have additional ranges to
> support multiple domains. If it is a bug in SSSD it is a major
> one that we need to fix ASAP. If it is a bad configuration I want
> to get to the core of the problem and have a clear set of
> instructions how to set things up because we need it for the next
> round of work we will start later this spring-summer.
>
>> Rowland
>>
>>> That should work. What would fail are some client side
>>> utilities that grew some interfaces to the winbind. But we
>>> plan to address them down the road.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for investigation! It is a valuable information for
>>> us.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
You have probably based your work on the S3 winbind, this is a
separate daemon. If you run S4 as an AD DC you do not get a
separate winbind daemon, it is now built into the samba daemon, the
S3 samba daemon is not to be confused with the S3 smbd daemon which
the samba daemon runs to get the s3fs fileserver backend. The S4
winbind seems to operate differently from S3 winbind and has, I
understand, a different code base.
On the samba 4 server setup as per the samba4 howto, running as an
AD DC, getent passwd username gives:
DOMAIN\username:*:3000017:100::/home/DOMAIN/username:/bin/bash
There does not seem to be a way to change the base for the UID
(3000017) and the GID(100) comes from the RID 513, so to use sssd
with the ad backend, the users uid produced by sssd (based on the
line above) would have to be 3000017, not what it is coming up with
at the moment.
What I am doing at the moment is setting the users uidNumber etc on
the S4 server and using sssd ldap to pull the info and it does seem
to work
This thread is too long for me to scan through and check, but are you
using:
ldap_idmap_autorid_compat = True
in your sssd.conf? If not, that's why you're getting different IDs. By
default, we use a deterministic algorithm to create the IDs, but
winbind's autorid algorithm requires that they all start at the first
slot and go upwards from there.
Also, make sure that ldap_idmap_range_min, ldap_idmap_range_max and
ldap_idmap_range_size match their equivalents in winbind. I'm not
certain if they do by default.
See sssd-ad(5) for more details (on SSSD 1.9 and later)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlFnFqsACgkQeiVVYja6o6PmpACfeAf8iO9HMYYkGKU4Nuq9UyRT
etwAnRAxo5ug5AsLlTL+N4LgiUMY3ytp
=4XP6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----