[Freeipa-devel] LDAPI + autobind instead of Kerberos (for named)?

[Simo Sorce]

On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 17:47 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> I may need to revive my sysaccounts module...
> >
> >There is one more issue though, and this one really concerns me.
> >If you need to put there multiple accounts because different servers
> >have different local accounts, then you open up access to unrelated
> >services. Because all these uids are shared on all systems.
> >
> >I think this kills my own proposal of sticking these entries in
> >cn=sysaccounts.
> >
> >However we could have something in cn=config maybe ?
> >So that each server can:
> >A) use the same name/DN
> >B) have ids that match exactly the local named account no matter how
> >many different variants we have
> >C) no management issues when the server is killed from the
> >infrastructure as cn=config is local to that server and goes away with
> >it.
> >
> >What do you think ?
> This is what Petr proposed too.
> 
> 389-ds autobind code searches starting from a base defined in cn=config.
> IPA defines it to be $SUFFIX. If we move these entries to cn=config,
> they will not be found by the code in
> ds/ldap/servers/slapd/daemon.c:slapd_bind_local_user(). If we change a
> search base to something in cn=config, we wouldn't be able to use user
> accounts for autobind -- something which is possible right now.
> 
> I'm not really concerned about user accounts' autobind but this is
> actually a behavior change for IPA.

And I guess we can't list multiple bases for now ?
We do not use autobind for anything now though, and I do not see it as
useful for "normal" users on an IPA server, so I would be ok with the
change, even if it breaks backward compatibility on masters themselves.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York