<div> <div> Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek@redhat.com> írta: <blockquote style="border-left:3px solid lightGray;padding-left:3px;">On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:25:17AM +0200, Molnár Domokos wrote: > On 09/14/2015 03:08 PM, Pavel Březina wrote: > >On 09/11/2015 02:40 PM, Molnár Domokos wrote: > > >>Full log attached. > >>"Molnár Domokos" <kretebe@freemail.hu> írta: > >> > >> > >> "Pavel Březina" <pbrezina@redhat.com> írta: > >> > >> On 09/09/2015 09:31 PM, Molnár Domokos wrote: > >> > I have a working IPA server and a working client config on an OpenSuse > >> > 13.2 with the following versions: > >> > nappali:~ # rpm -qa |grep sssd > >> > sssd-tools-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-krb5-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > python-sssd-config-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-ipa-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-dbus-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-krb5-common-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd-ldap-1.12.2-3.4.1.i586 > >> > sssd is confihured for nss, pam, sudo > >> > There is a test sudo rule defined in the ipa server, which applies to > >> > user "doma". However when the user tries to use sudo the rule does not > >> > work. > >> > doma@nappali:/home/doma> sudo ls > >> > doma's password: > >> > doma is not allowed to run sudo on nappali. This incident will be reported. > >> > The corresponding log in the sssd_sudo.log is this: > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_cmd_get_version] (0x0200): > >> > Received client version [1]. > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_cmd_get_version] (0x0200): > >> > Offered version [1]. > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_parse_name_for_domains] > >> > (0x0200): name 'doma' matched without domain, user is doma > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_parse_name_for_domains] > >> > (0x0200): name 'doma' matched without domain, user is doma > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sudosrv_cmd_parse_query_done] > >> > (0x0200): Requesting default options for [doma] from [<ALL>] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sudosrv_get_user] (0x0200): > >> > Requesting info about [doma@szilva] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] > >> > [sudosrv_get_sudorules_query_cache] (0x0200): Searching sysdb with > >> > [(&(objectClass=sudoRule)(|(sudoUser=ALL)(name=defaults)(sudoUser=doma)(sudoUser=#1816400003)(sudoUser=%ipausers)(sudoUser=%picture_access)(sudoUser=%doma)(sudoUser=+*))(&(dataExpireTimestamp<=1441826725)))] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] > >> > [sudosrv_get_sudorules_query_cache] (0x0200): Searching sysdb with > >> > [(&(objectClass=sudoRule)(|(name=defaults)))] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_parse_name_for_domains] > >> > (0x0200): name 'doma' matched without domain, user is doma > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sss_parse_name_for_domains] > >> > (0x0200): name 'doma' matched without domain, user is doma > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sudosrv_cmd_parse_query_done] > >> > (0x0200): Requesting rules for [doma] from [<ALL>] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [sudosrv_get_user] (0x0200): > >> > Requesting info about [doma@szilva] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] > >> > [sudosrv_get_sudorules_query_cache] (0x0200): Searching sysdb with > >> > [(&(objectClass=sudoRule)(|(sudoUser=ALL)(name=defaults)(sudoUser=doma)(sudoUser=#1816400003)(sudoUser=%ipausers)(sudoUser=%picture_access)(sudoUser=%doma)(sudoUser=+*))(&(dataExpireTimestamp<=1441826725)))] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:25 2015) [sssd[sudo]] > >> > [sudosrv_get_sudorules_query_cache] (0x0200): Searching sysdb with > >> > [(&(objectClass=sudoRule)(|(sudoUser=ALL)(sudoUser=doma)(sudoUser=#1816400003)(sudoUser=%ipausers)(sudoUser=%picture_access)(sudoUser=%doma)(sudoUser=+*)))] > >> > (Wed Sep 9 21:25:30 2015) [sssd[sudo]] [client_recv] (0x0200): Client > >> > disconnected! > >> > This seems perfectly OK with one exception. The query against the sysdb > >> > does not find the entry. This is strange because the entry is there. > >> > Log in sssd.log: > >> > (Wed Sep 2 08:52:13 2015) [sssd] [sysdb_domain_init_internal] (0x0200): > >> > DB File for szilva: /var/lib/sss/db/cache_szilva.ldb > >> > So we know that the sysdb is /var/lib/sss/db/cache_szilva.ldb > >> > Running the exact same query seen above in the sssd_sudo.log against the > >> > db returns: > >> > ldbsearch -H /var/lib/sss/db/cache_szilva.ldb > >> > "(&(objectClass=sudoRule)(|(sudoUser=ALL)(sudoUser=doma)(sudoUser=#1816400003)(sudoUser=%ipausers)(sudoUser=%picture_access)(sudoUser=%doma)(sudoUser=+*)))" > >> > asq: Unable to register control with rootdse! > >> > # record 1 > >> > dn: name=Doma_ls,cn=sudorules,cn=custom,cn=szilva,cn=sysdb > >> > cn: Doma_ls > >> > dataExpireTimestamp: 1441830262 > >> > entryUSN: 20521 > >> > name: Doma_ls > >> > objectClass: sudoRule > >> > originalDN: cn=Doma_ls,ou=sudoers,dc=szilva > >> > sudoCommand: ls > >> > sudoHost: nappali.szilva > >> > sudoRunAsGroup: ALL > >> > sudoRunAsUser: ALL > >> > sudoUser: doma > >> > distinguishedName: name=Doma_ls,cn=sudorules,cn=custom,cn=szilva,cn=sysdb > >> > # returned 1 records > >> > # 1 entries > >> > # 0 referrals > >> > This confirms that the entry is indeed there in the db. Why is it found > >> > with ldbsearch and why does sssd_sudo not find it? > >> > I am pretty much stuck with this one. Anyone has an idea? > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > >> this is strange. Can you provide the logs with debug level set to 0x3ff0 > >> > >> please? Can you also send it as an attachment? Thanks! > >> > >> Sure. Here it is. Now I can see that the rule is returned. The > >> question is why the rule does not match. Anyway much better :) > > > > >Hi, thanks for the logs. Since the rule is returned, we will get more information from sudo logs. Can you please enable sudo logging by putting the following line into /etc/sudo.conf? > > > >Debug sudo /var/log/sudo_debug all@trace > > > >Run sudo and send us /var/log/sudo_debug? Thanks > > Thanks for the tip with the proper debug syntax - I was unable to get a single log item out of sudo before. > > I think I have found something. This is the relevant part of the output of all@debug (you need this not trace I think): > > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] username=doma > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] domainname=NULL > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] state |= USERMATCH > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] Received 1 rule(s) > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> sudo_sss_filter_result @ ./sssd.c:175 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] in_res=0xb7c9c1b8, count=1, act=INCLUDE > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] emalloc: cnt=1 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> sudo_sss_result_filterp @ ./sssd.c:648 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> sudo_sss_check_host @ ./sssd.c:556 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] val[0]=nappali.szilva > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> addr_matches @ ./match_addr.c:206 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> addr_matches_if @ ./match_addr.c:61 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- addr_matches_if @ ./match_addr.c:71 := false > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] IP address nappali.szilva matches local host: false @ addr_matches() ./match_addr.c:217 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- addr_matches @ ./match_addr.c:218 := false > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> netgr_matches @ ./match.c:941 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] netgroup appali.szilva has no leading '+' > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- netgr_matches @ ./match.c:953 := false > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] -> hostname_matches @ ./match.c:776 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] host nappali matches sudoers pattern nappali.szilva: false @ hostname_matches() ./match.c:788 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- hostname_matches @ ./match.c:789 := false > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] sssd/ldap sudoHost 'nappali.szilva' ... not > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- sudo_sss_check_host @ ./sssd.c:591 := false > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- sudo_sss_result_filterp @ ./sssd.c:654 := 0 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] reallocating result: 0xb7cb1900 (count: 1 -> 0) > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- sudo_sss_filter_result @ ./sssd.c:221 := 0xb7c9e410 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] u_sss_result=(0xb7c9c1b8, 1) => f_sss_result=(0xb7c9e410, 0) > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] <- sudo_sss_result_get @ ./sssd.c:728 := 0xb7c9e410 > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] searching SSSD/LDAP for sudoers entries > Sep 14 22:13:39 sudo[2314] Done with LDAP searches > > > And here is the code from match.c. > > bool > hostname_matches(const char *shost, const char *lhost, const char *pattern) > { > debug_decl(hostname_matches, SUDO_DEBUG_MATCH) > const char *host; > bool rc; > > host = strchr(pattern, '.') != NULL ? lhost : shost; > if (has_meta(pattern)) { > rc = !fnmatch(pattern, host, FNM_CASEFOLD); > } else { > rc = !strcasecmp(host, pattern); > } > sudo_debug_printf(SUDO_DEBUG_DEBUG|SUDO_DEBUG_LINENO, > "host %s matches sudoers pattern %s: %s", > host, pattern, rc ? "true" : "false"); > debug_return_bool(rc); > } > > By the look of it it should match. I tried to find out how shost and lhost get their values - these are macros to a member of the sudo_user struct but that part is not debugged. Only thing I can confirm is that I do not get the > > log_warning(MSG_ONLY, N_("unable to resolve host %s"), user_host); > > from line 816 of sudoers.c. > > I also checked the hosts file and there I do have the > > 192.168.110.3 nappali nappali.szilva > > entry. > > Still stuck whit this. What is the output of 'hostname' ? I don't think sudo canonicalizes it.. -- </blockquote> <div> </div> <div>doma@nappali:/home/doma> hostname nappali doma@nappali:/home/doma> hostname --fqdn nappali.szilva</div> <div> </div> </div> </div>