Description of problem: authconfig deletes ldap from automount database in /etc/nsswitch conf when SSSD is being enabled: # grep automount /etc/nsswitch.conf automount: files sss ldap # ipa-client-install ... Client configuration complete. # grep automount /etc/nsswitch.conf automount: files sss This is the authconfig called by ipaclient-install.log that caused it: /usr/sbin/authconfig --enablesssdauth --update --enablesssd Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): authconfig-6.2.6-3.fc19.1.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Add ldap as automount source to nsswitch.conf 2. Enable SSSD and SSSD auth by authconfig 3. Actual results: ldap source gets wiped out Expected results: existent ldap source stays Additional info:
Related FreeIPA upstream ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3996
Do you have /usr/lib64/sssd/modules/libsss_autofs.so present on the system?
Authconfig is by no means perfect and it cannot maintain all user modified configuration state perfectly. It cannot distinguish between having the ldap in the automount entry intentionally or not.
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #2) > Do you have /usr/lib64/sssd/modules/libsss_autofs.so present on the system? Yes. (In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #3) > Authconfig is by no means perfect and it cannot maintain all user modified > configuration state perfectly. It cannot distinguish between having the ldap > in the automount entry intentionally or not. Just for my education - what is the risk with user having ldap source for automount? Given it is not default, one would assume it is there intentionally. What could it break?
authconfig is really a simple tool without artificial intelligence. It really cannot distinguish between intentional configuration and stray misconfiguration from previous authconfig calls (for example authconfig --enableldap --update)
Sure, I get that it is a simple tool. Question is if we should try to try to be smarter than user and try to fix such stray configuration. I would imagine that a more understandable behavior would be to force user to run: # authconfig --disableldap --update after he run a stray configuration command - instead of trying to fix supposedly stray configuration in a completely different command (--enablesssdauth --update --enablesssd in our case). (also adding Dmitri for discussion)
Tomas, I would be interested in your opinion on Comment 6.
I have not much to add. The stray configuration might come from other sources as well not only from authconfig --enableldap.
Tomas, Sorry I have to reopen it. I disagree with the assessment. I think it is generally wrong to remove something that you are not explicitly told to remove. It does not matter whether is it is ldap or nis or hesoid or something else. IMO it is bug, this is why I am reopening it. Whether is is a high priority one or not is a different story. I would suggest that QE team should chime in with the opinion. It is definitely not a blocker and I would live with a joint decision to not fix it especially if we decide that for RHEL8 we are going to change authconfig to be even more centred around SSSD. Thanks Dmitri
You have to understand, that authconfig does it for other things such as PAM configuration as well. It is a slippery slope to think that authconfig can be a perfect tool that somehow magically modifies configuration files but can infer that user does not want to modify this or that "because why?". Given the ldap is handled by authconfig --enableldap (and I know that this will set ldap for all NSS services not just automount, but that's not that relevant), authconfig will remove ldap if it does not see it as enabled. I can guarantee you that leaving stray ldap would make different user to report it as a bug. To me it is a real WONTFIX, I am sorry.
I also have to disagree here. If the user has added ldap to the automount: entry, authconfig has no business removing it. Tools should never assume they are smarter than the user, especially when the tool is already admittedly "simple". The "simpler" the tool, the less it should assume it knows better than the user.
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.