On 7/2/21 9:39 AM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Thanks!Thanks Mark. That is now done.
An interesting side note here: even if I remove the reference to auth02 in my fixdeferral.ldif and re-apply it, the reference to auth02 returns. On a whim, I added a third nsslapd-referral and appied that. After a reboot, we had just auth01 and auth02 again.
Once a backend/suffix is replicated, the replication plugin apparently controls the referrals on the backends (which makes sense). I'm not sure why we don't honor the agreement's configuration. There could be a good reason for it, but we need to look into it closer...
Indeed, and in this case the explicitly set referrals should then be configured in the replica config entry using nsds5ReplicaReferral attribute.
If this attribute does not exist then automatic referrals computed from the RUV.
IMHO the reason we don't honor the agreement's configuration is that
the RUV elements are generated on their specific supplier (which does not have the agreement toward itself)
That said, I think that if a supplier provides ldaps port, it should generate an ldaps url in the RUV rather than an ldap one.
Regards
_______________________________________________Regards,
Mark
Not sure whether that's helpful, but it sure baffled me.
Thanks again for the help!
From: Mark Reynolds <mreynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:00 AM
To: "Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta)" <Brian.Collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [389-users] Re: Replica's nsslapd-referral uri is ldap: instead of ldap:
On 7/2/21 8:35 AM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply, Mark.
Also, thank you to you and the folks at Red Hat for all the work in the newer releases. Two things stand out: dsconf and not having to run X. There is much more, but those two are a great benefit.
Thanks, that's nice to hear! Wait until the UI rewrite is done ;-)
So I executed the following, named fixreferral.ldif
dn: cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config
changetype: modify
replace: nsslapd-referral
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth01.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc%3Dcom
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth02.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc%3Dcom
Using: ldapmodify -x -D "cn=Directory Manager" -W -H ldaps://auth04 -f fixreferral.ldif
Then issued: systemctl restart dirsrv@auth04
When I checked, however, it had reverted to:
# grep nsslapd-referral dse.ldif
nsslapd-referral: ldap://auth01.example.com:389/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc
nsslapd-referral: ldap://auth02.example.com:389/dc%3Dexample%2Cdc
BUT... dse.ldif.startOK has this:
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth01.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cd
nsslapd-referral: ldaps://auth02.example.com:636/dc%3Dexample%2Cd
So it would appear to be reverting AFTER the restart. Which makes me think it's something that it is receiving from the supplier possibly?
Ugh, so the replication plugin is probably rewriting it. Odd that it "worked" in 1.3.x because I don't recall any changes around referrals in a long time. We will need investigate it. Can you open a github issue describing the issue, and how it's blocking password updates?
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/new/choose
Thanks,
Mark
Thanks again,
Brian
From: Mark Reynolds <mareynol@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:22 PM
To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta)" <Brian.Collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [389-users] Replica's nsslapd-referral uri is ldap: instead of ldap:
Hi Brian,
You can just change nsslapd-referral attribute to use ldaps instead of ldap.
Now you "should" be able to do that in the console, but I just found out that there is a bug in the console where we don't actually grab the referrals from the mapping tree entry. <sigh> Glad I found it now because the cockpit console is going through a rewrite (to migrate to Patternfly 4). So I will fix that, but it doesn't help you today.
So for now you will need to use ldapmodify to change the nsslapd-referral attribute. I would say to use dsconf but it is also broken for properly setting referrals <sigh again>. Once I fix dsconf it would work like this:
#dsconf slapd-supplier1 backend suffix set userroot --del-referral ldap://localhost:636
#dsconf slapd-supplier1 backend suffix set userroot --add-referral ldaps://localhost:636
Right now dsconf updates the referral on the wrong entry :-( We'll get this all fixed up!
HTH,
Mark
On 7/1/21 6:04 PM, Collins, Brian (CAI - Atlanta) wrote:
Good day,
I am doing prep work for replacing our older 389 servers (1.3.8) running on RHEL 7 with newer ones on RHEL 8 and 1.4.4.
I have the two RHEL 7 boxes in a multi-master replication setup.
For this phase of testing I have one read-only replica on 1.4.4, as a consumer to the two current servers. I set up a Linux client to login using SSSD, bound to the consumer. It works fine except when I want to change passwords. I was getting "Operation requires a secure connection." After a lot of digging, I think I found the culprit there: on the consumer, in "dn: cn=dc\3Dexample\2Cdc\3Dcom,cn=mapping tree,cn=config" the nsslapd-referral uri for my two current servers is ldap: instead of ldaps:. Indeed, in the cockpit console, the Remote RUV list shows both servers as ldap:.
But on the two suppliers, the old servers, the referral uri is ldaps.
When I set up the replication agreement for the new consumer, I did it just as I did for the current setup, so I don't feel like that's where I went wrong.
Thanks in advance for any pointers,
Brian Collins
_______________________________________________389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDo not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure--Directory Server Development Team--Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure-- Directory Server Development Team
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
389 Directory Server Development Team
_______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
