Обсуждение: [PATCH] Add an ldapoption to disable chasing LDAP referrals
Hey All,
This patch request grew from this post (of mine) to pgsql-general:
The patch adds another available LDAP option (ldapnochaseref) for search+bind mode in the pg_hba.conf fil. If set to 1 (0 is default) then it performs a ldap_set_option which disables chasing of any LDAP references which are returned as part of the search LDIF.
I can think of two use cases for this:
- (the case which spawned my email) A valid search is performed, but for some reason a "ref:" with a non responsive LDAP server is returned as well, which causes the authentication to time out (could be intermittent if DNS round robin or similar is used and some of the LDAP servers are not functioning / a packet dropping firewall is in the way).
- (a case I found when testing with AD) A valid search is performed and 6 "ref:" entries are returned, which all must be chased before authentication can succeed. Setting ldapnochaseref speeds up authentication with no negative cost (assuming you understand your LDAP schema).
I think it's work noting that this setting seems to be the default for ldapsearch on Linux these days.
Hopefully I found all the documentation that I was meant to update, let me know if not though.
Cheers,
James Sewell
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
_____________________________________
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.
Вложения
Hey Peter,
You are correct, it is the same as the referrals option in pam_ldap. It's also the -C (sometimes -R - it seems ldapsearch options are pretty non-standard) option in ldapsearch.
As far as I'm aware you can't pass this in an LDAP URL, primarily because this never gets sent to the LDAP server. The server always returns an LDIF with inline references, this just determines if you chase them client side or just list them as is.
I could be missing something here, but using:
ldapreferrals={0|1}
Would require a three state type, as we need a way of not interfering with the library defaults? To 'enable' the new behavior here using a boolean you would need to set ldapreferrals=false - which with the normal way of dealing with config booleans would alter the default behavior if the option was not specified.
How do you feel about:
ldapdisablereferrals=(0|1)
Cheers,
James Sewell
James Sewell
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
_____________________________________
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On 7/2/13 12:20 AM, James Sewell wrote:This appears to be the same as the "referrals" option in pam_ldap
> Hey All,
>
> This patch request grew from this post (of mine) to pgsql-general:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEzouAe-g1_OejaGujjMem675DNYStwyBp4d_Wz6Om+fxA@mail.gmail.com
>
> The patch adds another available LDAP option (ldapnochaseref) for
> search+bind mode in the pg_hba.conf fil. If set to 1 (0 is default) then
> it performs a ldap_set_option which disables chasing of any LDAP
> references which are returned as part of the search LDIF.
(http://linux.die.net/man/5/pam_ldap). So it seems legitimate.
For consistency, I would name the option ldapreferrals={0|1}. I prefer
avoiding double negatives.
Do you know of a standard way to represent this option in an LDAP URL,
perhaps as an extension?
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.
Вложения
Heya,
I see what you are saying, the problem as I see it is that the action we are taking here is "disable chasing ldap referrals". If the name is ldapreferrals and we use a boolean then setting it to 1 reads in a counter intuitive manner:
"set ldapreferals=true to disable chasing LDAP referrals."
Perhaps you are fine with this though if it's documented? It does work in the inverse way to pam_ldap, where setting to true enables referral chasing. pam_ldap works like so:
not set : library default
set to 0 : disable referral chasing
set to 1 : enable referral chasing
The other option would be to have the default value (of the parameter) be true and set the boolean to false to disable it. I can't find any other examples of this though - I assume having a one off like this in the code is a bad thing also?
I'm happy to let you guys decide.
Cheers,
James
James Sewell
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
_____________________________________
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, James Sewell <james.sewell@lisasoft.com> wrote:Hey Peter,You are correct, it is the same as the referrals option in pam_ldap. It's also the -C (sometimes -R - it seems ldapsearch options are pretty non-standard) option in ldapsearch.As far as I'm aware you can't pass this in an LDAP URL, primarily because this never gets sent to the LDAP server. The server always returns an LDIF with inline references, this just determines if you chase them client side or just list them as is.I could be missing something here, but using:ldapreferrals={0|1}Would require a three state type, as we need a way of not interfering with the library defaults? To 'enable' the new behavior here using a boolean you would need to set ldapreferrals=false - which with the normal way of dealing with config booleans would alter the default behavior if the option was not specified.How do you feel about:ldapdisablereferrals=(0|1)I agree with Peter that the negative thing is bad. l don't see the problem, really. If you don't specify it, you rely on library defaults. If you do specify it, we lock it to that setting. I don't see the need to specifically have a setting to rely on library defaults - just remove it from the line and you get that.--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.
Вложения
Hey,
New patch attached. I've moved from using a boolean to an enum trivalue.
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
James
James Sewell
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
_____________________________________
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:30 AM, James Sewell <james.sewell@lisasoft.com> wrote:Heya,I see what you are saying, the problem as I see it is that the action we are taking here is "disable chasing ldap referrals". If the name is ldapreferrals and we use a boolean then setting it to 1 reads in a counter intuitive manner:That assumes that the default in the ldap library is always going to be to chase them. Does the standard somehow mandate that it should be?"set ldapreferals=true to disable chasing LDAP referrals."You'd obviously reverse the meaning as well. "set ldapreferals=false to disable chasing LDAP referrals."Perhaps you are fine with this though if it's documented? It does work in the inverse way to pam_ldap, where setting to true enables referral chasing. pam_ldap works like so:not set : library defaultset to 0 : disable referral chasingset to 1 : enable referral chasingThat is exactly what I'm suggesting it should do, and I'm pretty sure that's what Peter suggested as well.
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.
Вложения
Hey All,
I had missed these emails, sorry.
The search+bind mode issue is one of documentation location, I have fixed it by moving the section to the applied to both list. As the patch is to do with post-auth response this is correct.
As far as the issue when something other than 0 or 1 is set I am happy throw an error (although this doesn't seem to be how option such as LDAPTLS work: 1 if 1 else 0). I assume I would use the ereport() function to do this (using the second example from this page http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/error-message-reporting.html)?
Cheers,
James
James Sewell,
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
______________________________________
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On 7/8/13 9:33 PM, James Sewell wrote:When ldapreferrals is set to something other than "0" or "1" exactly, it
> New patch attached. I've moved from using a boolean to an enum trivalue.
just ignores the option. That's not good, I think. It should probably
be an error.
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.