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-users-groups-private-groups.html >>> >>> 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_Plug_in_Functionality_Reference.html#Server_Plug_in_Functionality_Reference-UID_Uniqueness_Plug_in >>> >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3258 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20081121/fdc9b1d4/attachment.bin
