Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Description of problem:
This issue is copied from 7.7 bug 1807033.
If one of the server name in the list for krb5_server is UNRESOLVED then failover doesn't work.
Lets assume that two krb5 servers are valid and resolvable ie, Server1-valid.example.com, Server2-valid.example.com.
The unresolved krb5 server name is invalid.example,com, then following examples work:
krb5_server = Server1-valid.example.com,Server2-valid.example.com
krb5_server = Server1-valid.example.com,_srv_
krb5_server = Server1-valid.example.com,10.16.200.11
krb5_server = 10.16.200.11,_srv_,Server1-valid.example.com,
However the below combinations fail to work:
krb5_server = Server1-valid.example.com,Server2-valid.example.com,invalid.example,com
krb5_server = Server1-valid.example.com,invalid.example,com
krb5_server = invalid.example,com,Server1-valid.example.com,10.16.200.11
krb5_server = invalid.example,com,Server2-valid.example.com,_srv_
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
sssd-2.2.3-16.el8.x86_64
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Setup a DNS server with valid KRB Server name and SRV records.
A forward zone example would be:
-------------------------------
$TTL 604800
@ IN SOA Server1-valid.example.com. root.Server1-valid.example.com. (
2010050702 ; serial
604800 ; refresh
86400 ; retry
2419200 ; expire
10800 ; negative caching time
)
example.com. IN NS Server1-valid.example.com.
_ldap._tcp IN SRV 1 0 389 Server1-valid
_kerberos._udp IN SRV 0 0 88 Server1-valid
Server1-valid IN A 10.19.34.83
Server2-valid IN A 10.16.216.102
--------------------------------
2. Setup SSSD domain section with any one of the above krb5_server combination:
[domain/LDAP]
debug_level=0xFFF0
id_provider = ldap
ldap_uri = ldap://Server1-valid.example.com
ldap_search_base = dc=example,dc=com
auth_provider = krb5
krb5_realm = EXAMPLE.COM
krb5_server = invalid.example,com,Server1-valid.example.com
krb5_backup_server = Server2-valid.example.com
dns_discovery_domain = example.com
3. Restart SSSD service and execute a user login. You will see that user auth fails.
Actual results:
User auth fails whenever UNRESOLVED server name is present in the list.
Expected results:
Failover should work even if one of the SERVER in the list is unresolved.
Additional info:
*** Bug 1807074 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7RHEL Program Management
2021-08-25 07:27:07 UTC
After evaluating this issue, there are no plans to address it further or fix it in an upcoming release. Therefore, it is being closed. If plans change such that this issue will be fixed in an upcoming release, then the bug can be reopened.