Hide Forgot
Description of problem: I have configured /etc/libuser.conf such that new users are created in my ldap directory (as apposed to in /etc/passwd /etc/shadow ...). If I then create a new user then indeed all the information, including the shadowAccount objectclass and all its attributes, end up in the ldap directory. However when using system-config-users to display all the information about such a user (from the ldap directory), the shadow information is NOT presented. When you display all the information about a user which is in the /etc files, the shadow information is presented. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): system-config-users-1.2.41-0.fc4.1 How reproducible: Use system-config-users to have look at users. Pick one that is in the /etc files. Inspect its properties and note that it does have the "Password Info" tab. Pick a user that is not in /etc files but in the ldap directory. Inspect its properties and note that it does NOT have the "Password Info" tab. Steps to Reproduce: See above. Actual results: "Password Info" tab missing. Expected results: "Password Info" tab shown. Additional info: Obviously in order to test this you need to have an ldap directory setup and have libuser configured for it. I took a peek at userProperties.py and discovered that indeed the code doesn't look for shadow information in the the ldap directory when it should. There are just 2 places where this is wrong and the fix is easy: diff userProperties.py userProperties.py.org 208c208 < if "shadow" in self.userEnt.modules() or "ldap" in self.userEnt.modules(): --- > if "shadow" in self.userEnt.modules(): 251c251 < if "shadow" not in self.userEnt.modules() and "ldap" not in self.userEnt.modules(): --- > if "shadow" not in self.userEnt.modules():
Mirek, if someone uses the ldap backend, can I rely on shadow information being available from libuser?
My experience is that if the objectclass and the attributes are there then: yes!, the ldap module of libuser will pick it up and pass it on up to the python level. I have experimented with ldap users with and without shadow stuff. Obviously for users without, libuser can't make it available.
May question was rather: Can (or how can) I easily determine whether shadow info is available from ldap, I wanted to avoid messing up the code with try ... except constructs. That's why I Cc'ed Miloslav Trmac who maintains libuser.
You can't determine it globally, each LDAP entry can have a different set of objectclasses, and all attributes in the shadow objectclass are optional, so this should really be done per-entity, per-attribute. AFAICS the original patch would thus cause exceptions when editing an LDAP entry without some or all of the shadow attributes. As for try...except, instead of entity[attrname] which raises KeyError on nonexistent attributes, you can use entity.get(attrname) which returns [], or even entity.get(attrname, defaultValue) Adding LDAP attributes that didn't exist should work, but it is not possible to change the structural class of the LDAP entry. This should only be a problem if you try to modify fields that don't exist in /etc/passwd or /etc/shadow, such as given name/surname, room number, phone numbers.
Indeed I have seen such exceptions while experimenting. With defaultValue argument to entity.get they can be avoided. We should also set the same default values in the initial dialoog. This patch does both: diff userProperties.py userProperties.py.org 158,160c158,160 < self.pwRequireEntry.set_text('99999') < self.pwWarnEntry.set_text('7') < self.pwInactiveEntry.set_text('-1') --- > self.pwRequireEntry.set_text('0') > self.pwWarnEntry.set_text('0') > self.pwInactiveEntry.set_text('0') 208c208 < if "shadow" in self.userEnt.modules() or "ldap" in self.userEnt.modules(): --- > if "shadow" in self.userEnt.modules(): 209a210,213 > min = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMIN) > max = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMAX) > warning = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWWARNING) > inactive = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWINACTIVE) 227,231d230 < min = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMIN, [0]) < max = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWMAX, [99999]) < warning = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWWARNING, [7]) < inactive = self.userEnt.get(libuser.SHADOWINACTIVE, [-1]) < 252c251 < if "shadow" not in self.userEnt.modules() and "ldap" not in self.userEnt.modules(): --- > if "shadow" not in self.userEnt.modules(): By the way, nasty tester as I am, I also entered non numeric values for e.g. "warning". That isn't handled "gracefully". But that is not the issue at hand.
Mirek, do I read you correctly that libuser provides no means to convert non-shadow to shadow accounts and vice versa? Fair enough -- shall I file an RFE ;-)? Honestly, I think converting to and from shadow accounts should be made accessible in s-c-users. Tomas, could authconfig/system-config-authentication provide controls for that? Besides, can we convert between non-shadow/shadow in LDAP with s-c-auth? Ed, please in future produce unified diffs ("diff -u", they're much more readable) and attach them to the bug instead of pasting them wholesale into the comments. And please open a separate bug for the non-numerical stuff not being handled gracefully, thanks.
No, adding/removing the shadow attributes should work fine. The trouble is with adding the extra fields mentioned in comment #4, that under some conditions can't be done in LDAP except by creating a new entry and deleting the original one
You mean that converting between posixAccount and shadowAccount(?) objectclasses isn't possible, right?
No. The trouble is that neither "posixAccount" nor "shadowAccount" is a structural objectclass, so the LDAP entry must have one of the "inetOrgPerson" and "account" objectlasses, and converting between them (e.g. to add the "givenName" attribute) isn't possible. All attributes in "shadowAccount" but "uid" are optional, so an entry may have the "shadowAccount" class without having any shadow data.
Do the differences between inetOrgPerson and account objectclasses have any relevance in the realm of OS account management (i.e. should I bother that one can't convert between the two)?
AFAIK they don't if you are limited to the fields stored in traditional /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files.
I guess I am (unless I want to extend s-c-users in that direction, which I don't). Is there anything else I need to know, for instance can I just write the shadow attributes on a non-shadow account and they will "magically" appear/that object will magically become a "shadowAccount" one if it has only been a "posixAccount" before?
Yes, that should just work.
In summary I think all this means: 1) the orginal problem gets solved by the first proposed patch. 2) in case other tools have been used to create "accounts" in the ldap directory and those tools did not put the shadow stuff in properly, then (depending on what was missing) we could get exceptions. We can get around those with the second proposed patch (which includes the first). s-c-users sanitizes the shadow mess of those other tools. Although strictly speeking this bug is about 1) only, I propose to apply the combined patch. That will make s-c-users more robust to handle the "incorrect" shadow stuff of other tools.
Created attachment 126324 [details] combined patch as mentioned in comment #14
I plan to apply this in the FC6 version.
system-config-users-1.2.47-1.fc6 still has this problem.
This report targets the FC3 or FC4 products, which have now been EOL'd. Could you please check that it still applies to a current Fedora release, and either update the target product or close it ? Thanks.
Comment 18 requests to check if this bug is still present in the current Fedora release. I beleave the current release to be FC6. If that is indeed the case then this question was already answered before it was asked, in comment 17. Comment 18 further requests to either update the target product or close it. Well since this bug is still not fixed in the current realease, I think it is inappropriate to close it. The request to update the target is in a sense a "procedure" issue. When updating a component, do we check for bugs on previous versions? If so then it is better to keep the bug registered on the original version of the component. Otherwise we end up updating that kind of stuff with every new version of EOL of an old version.
I've applied your changes, but modified them a bit to define defaults at one place instead of scattered all over the file. It would be great if you could check out the Mercurial repo from http://hg.fedoraproject.org/hg/hosted/system-config-users and see whether this fixes the issue for you as I don't have an LDAP directory handy/configured with which to test this. As these changes require translations to be updated, I don't plan to issue fixed packages for FC6 -- translations won't be updated in time before it is EOLed. Therefore I'll move this bug to F7.
NB: The command to check out the source code is: hg clone http://hg.fedoraproject.org/hg/hosted/system-config-users This will check out things into a (new) directory system-config-users in the current directory.
Checked it out. Reviewed the code and compared it with the F8 version. Looks good. On my F8 test system I then moved your version of userProperties.py in place of the installed one. I checked a few accounts that are only to be found in my ldap directory. Looks good, no problems found. So this solves my original problem. The way you have dealt with the defaults, by defining pwAllowDefault = 0 and the consistently using self.pwAllowDefault, is indeed a very good way of handling it. But I do have one remaining question about defining the values in the source code: shouldn't we be getting them from /etc/libuser.conf (somehow by means of the libuser API) instead?
(In reply to comment #22) > But I do have one remaining question about defining the values in the source > code: shouldn't we be getting them from /etc/libuser.conf (somehow by means of > the libuser API) instead? user = admin.initUser('this_can_be_anything') and then access the attributes of the user.
(In reply to comment #23) > user = admin.initUser('this_can_be_anything') > and then access the attributes of the user. Mirek, could I "admin.InitUser (None)" to get an "anonymous" user? If I just use an improbable user name someone will complain that this won't work because they created such a user ;-).
(In reply to comment #24) > Mirek, could I "admin.InitUser (None)" to get an "anonymous" user? If I just use > an improbable user name someone will complain that this won't work because they > created such a user ;-). That's not a problem, initUser doesn't fail if the user name is already used. The check is performed only before actually creating the user.
I've implemented this upstream and a package for Rawhide is building at the moment. I'll postpone building this for F7/F8 until the translations are in order again. It'd be great if you would try this out, either from the Mercurial repo or the Rawhide package.
Checked it out. Reviewed the code and compared it with the previous version. Again, looks good. On my F8 test system I then moved your version of userProperties.py in place of the previous one. I changed some values in /etc/userlib.conf. Those clearly show up in the user properties dialoog. So far so good! I haven't checked any of "logic" (code flow, results) because I expect that to have remained the same.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 7 is nearing the end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 7. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '7'. 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 prior to Fedora 7's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 7 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 please change the 'version' of this bug. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. 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. If possible, it is recommended that you try the newest available Fedora distribution to see if your bug still exists. Please read the Release Notes for the newest Fedora distribution to make sure it will meet your needs: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 7 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on June 13, 2008. Fedora 7 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. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.