Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
For bugs related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 product line. The current stable release is 5.10. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and above, please visit Red Hat JIRA https://issues.redhat.com/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa?pid=12332745 to report new issues.

Bug 448036

Summary: autofs parses /etc/nsswitch.conf incorrectly
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Ian Kent <ikent>
Component: autofsAssignee: Ian Kent <ikent>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 5.2CC: ikent, jmoyer, mgahagan
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-20 21:45:21 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:
Bug Depends On: 445880    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Ian Kent 2008-05-23 03:00:50 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #445880 +++

Description of problem:
When autofs parses /etc/nsswitch.conf, the lexer only recognizes as sources
values which are given in an enumerated list.  This is wrong because the
nsswitch interface is designed to allow for arbitrarily-named modules to be used.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.0.3-11

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install nss_db, and add "db" to the list of sources for any item in
/etc/nsswitch.conf, so that nss_db will be used.
2. Restart autofs.
  
Actual results:
syntax error in nsswitch config near [ no opening bracket ]

Expected results:
No error, autofs starts up.

-- Additional comment from jmoyer on 2008-05-09 12:51 EST --
Ian, this has now come up for the second time.  Can we simply ignore sources we
don't support?

-- Additional comment from nalin on 2008-05-09 13:23 EST --
FWIW, that's the behavior I'd prefer.  BTW, I was wrong about the
how-to-reproduce it part: apparently only the "automount:" setting matters.

-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-09 21:05 EST --
(In reply to comment #1)
> Ian, this has now come up for the second time.  Can we simply ignore sources we
> don't support?

Yes, I'm going to have to work a bit harder on this.

The problem being that our yacc parser is written to recognize
a list of known sources. I haven't looked yet but I didn't
generalize it last time so there's probably a reason for that.


-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-09 21:06 EST --
(In reply to comment #2)
> FWIW, that's the behavior I'd prefer.  BTW, I was wrong about the
> how-to-reproduce it part: apparently only the "automount:" setting matters.

Understood.
Yes, the "automount:" entry is the only bit autofs looks at.

-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-12 02:15 EST --
Created an attachment (id=305082)
Patch to ignore nsswitch sources that aren't supported


-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-12 03:06 EST --
Could you please check this to see if the patch functions correctly.
The built packages are available at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/autofs/5.0.3/14.



-- Additional comment from fedora-triage-list on 2008-05-14 06:55 EST --
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

-- Additional comment from nalin on 2008-05-14 11:54 EST --
Yes, 5.0.3-14 seems to work correctly.  Thanks!

-- Additional comment from jmoyer on 2008-05-14 14:38 EST --
sounds like a regression test is in order.

-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-22 22:58 EST --
(In reply to comment #8)
> Yes, 5.0.3-14 seems to work correctly.  Thanks!

Oh boy, I missed this.
Thanks nalin, I'll merge this upstream and push it out to
F-9.

-- Additional comment from ikent on 2008-05-22 22:59 EST --
(In reply to comment #9)
> sounds like a regression test is in order.

Yep, and a RHEL bug to go with it.

Ian

Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2008-06-02 19:57:27 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release.  Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products.  This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update
release.

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2009-01-20 21:45:21 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0178.html