Bug 829760

Summary:	Optimize RFC2307bis lookups when user and group search bases do not overlap
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Dmitri Pal <dpal>
Component:	sssd	Assignee:	Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Kaushik Banerjee <kbanerje>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	7.0	CC:	bugzilla.redhat.com, grajaiya, kbanerje, mkosek, prc, tim.gollschewsky
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	sssd-1.12.0-1.el7	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-03-05 10:26:38 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Dmitri Pal 2012-06-07 13:52:22 UTC

This bug is created as a clone of upstream ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1366

One of the biggest performance issues with RFC2307bis servers is that, because a member attribute provides only a DN, we have to perform a lookup for that DN to determine if it is a user or a group.

One way we could optimize this and save ourselves some lookups would be to compare the DN to the set of configured search bases if (and only if) the user and group search bases do not overlap.

This check should be done once at startup time and saved in the ldap_id_ctx. It should only be done if the ldap_user_search_base and ldap_group_search_base are both populated during initialization (in other words, if we are autodetecting the search base from the RootDSE, don't bother doing this comparison then).

Comment 3 Martin Kosek 2014-06-17 12:23:23 UTC

Will be fixed as a part of bigger refactoring in SSSD (rebase bug 1109756).

Comment 5 Kaushik Banerjee 2015-01-16 10:34:36 UTC

SanityOnly verification with sssd-1.12.2-42.el7

All ldap backend automation tests pass.

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2015-03-05 10:26:38 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0441.html