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

[Martin Kosek]

On 06/19/2014 04:58 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> 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.
> The only thing we use is root autobind which is handled by a separate
> mechanism, I think.
> 
> Thus, it suits me.
> 
> Petr, can you please make a ticket?

How can you be sure that people do not already use the autobind feature? IMO,
it is a bad move to just break it because we have no better idea how to handle
named autobind.

I would rather like to see improved autobind capability in 389-ds-base which
would allow us to do the autobind configuration in cn=config and do entries like:

uidnumber=25+gidnumber=25,cn=autobind,cn=config
...
binddn: krbprincipalname=DNS/ipa.server.test,cn=computers...

And thus have a per-server configuration without breaking existent functionality.

Martin