-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Howard,
We are trying to make likewise-open packages available for Fedora
but they only want to pull OpenLDAP patches from upstream. So
I'm in a bit of a spot here. You've already accepted the lsap_bind_gssapi
patch, this one simply exposes the existing code.
Is it just the public ldap_bind_gssapi_s() signature that you
have an issue with? If, as you suggest, we give you a patch
that adds an LDAP_AUTH_GSSAPI flag to ldap_bind_s() but keep
the same (existing) ldap_bind_gssapi_s() internals, would that
be acceptable?
cheers, jerry
- --
Director of Engineering http://www.likewise.com/
Likewise-CIFS http://www.likewiseopen.org/
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?" --Balian
On 6/2/10 12:10 AM, Scott Salley wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Chu [mailto:hyc@symas.com]
> Sent: Tue 6/1/2010 6:07 PM
> To: Scott Salley
> Cc: openldap-its(a)openldap.org
> Subject: Re: (ITS#6567) Enable GSSAPI support and expose ldap_gssadpi_bind_s
>
> ssalley(a)likewise.com wrote:
>> Full_Name: Scott Salley
>> Version: HEAD
>> OS: Linux
>> URL:
> http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-defi…
>> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234)
>>
>>
>> Note that a similar issue/contribution was submitted in 2008
> (Contrib/5369) and
>> appears to have been 'lost'.
>
>> The patch
> http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-defi…
>> makes it possible to use the GSSAPI support in OpenLDAP by:
>>
>> 1. Defining --with-gssapi in configure which
>> a. Checks for appropriate header files
>> b. Checks for the appropriate library
>> c. Defines HAVE_GSSAPI to 1 in everything is in order
>>
>> 2. Exposing ldap_gssapi_bind_s in ldap.h
>
> I am still disinclined to publish any of this. The standard mechanism for
> using GSSAPI in LDAP is via SASL. I see no benefit to propagating more
> non-standard one-off ldap_XXX_bind flavors. It's a poor design approach
> and it
> increases our support workload for no appreciable gain. It increases
> application developer's workload as well, if they have to test for the
> existence of multiple flavors of ldap_XXX_bind and code for them each
> separately in their apps.
>
> If you really want to have "direct" access to other authentication
> mechanisms,
> the right way to do this is by adding new LDAP_AUTH_xxx definitions that can
> be muxed out from a single ldap_bind API. Of course, by the time you've
> implemented option parsing so that generic client code can be configured
> with
> arbitrary Bind mechanisms, you would have re-implemented SASL.
>
> --
> -- Howard Chu
> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFMBj/7IR7qMdg1EfYRAjmcAKC1MyKit8TKa1W96cZ2Uh3Cdm/EMACeJtbu
9/F8j8UQJ5C3X0sW5LytRq8=
=tkYo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:08 AM, hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
> ssalley(a)likewise.com wrote:
>> Full_Name: Scott Salley
>> Version: HEAD
>> OS: Linux
>> URL: =
http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def=
ine-have-gssapi.patch
>> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234)
>>=20
>>=20
>> Note that a similar issue/contribution was submitted in 2008 =
(Contrib/5369) and
>> appears to have been 'lost'.
>=20
>> The patch =
http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-def=
ine-have-gssapi.patch
>> makes it possible to use the GSSAPI support in OpenLDAP by:
>>=20
>> 1. Defining --with-gssapi in configure which
>> a. Checks for appropriate header files
>> b. Checks for the appropriate library
>> c. Defines HAVE_GSSAPI to 1 in everything is in order
>>=20
>> 2. Exposing ldap_gssapi_bind_s in ldap.h
>=20
> I am still disinclined to publish any of this. The standard mechanism =
for=20
> using GSSAPI in LDAP is via SASL. I see no benefit to propagating more=20=
> non-standard one-off ldap_XXX_bind flavors. It's a poor design =
approach and it=20
> increases our support workload for no appreciable gain. It increases=20=
> application developer's workload as well, if they have to test for the=20=
> existence of multiple flavors of ldap_XXX_bind and code for them each=20=
> separately in their apps.
I concur and add: At one time I thought it might be useful to implement =
a few SASL mechanisms directly in libldap for cases where one didn't =
want to suck in a SASL library. But for most mechanisms removing the =
SASL library is worth it in my eyes, especially any mechanism other than =
PLAIN or EXTERNAL. But where this is worth it, it should be done =
through existing APIs. Adding mech specific APIs should be avoided.
>=20
> If you really want to have "direct" access to other authentication =
mechanisms,
> the right way to do this is by adding new LDAP_AUTH_xxx definitions =
that can=20
> be muxed out from a single ldap_bind API.
I could see adding new API to support new authentication frameworks to =
which LDAP was extended to support. For instance, if LDAP was extended =
to directly support GSS API mechanisms, then adding LDAP_AUTH_GSSAPI =
would make sense (here GSS API refers to the GSS API not the SASL =
Kerberos mechanism called GSSAPI). But for security reasons, it =
unlikely this will ever happen,
=20
> Of course, by the time you've=20
> implemented option parsing so that generic client code can be =
configured with=20
> arbitrary Bind mechanisms, you would have re-implemented SASL.
>=20
> --=20
> -- Howard Chu
> CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
> Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
> Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
>=20
>=20
raphael.ouazana(a)linagora.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Raphael Ouazana
> Version: 2.4.21
> OS: Linux
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/raphael-ouazana-autogroup-100427.patch
> Submission from: (NULL) (213.41.232.151)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch allow the autogroup overlay to handle correctly the attr part
> of the URL ldap://dc=example,dc=com?attr?sub?(filter). Before this patch, the
> attr part was simply ignored. Now the group entry is populated by the values of
> the attribute attr in the resulting entries.
>
> Implementation details:
> Some cases (modify, delete) are harder to handle when you store values instead
> of dn. In this cases the overlay try to detect if groups have been modified and
> then simply refresh them. This can cause performance hits if the search
> specified by the URL deals with an important number of entries.
>
> Legal notice:
> This patch file is derived from OpenLDAP Software. All of the modifications to
> OpenLDAP Software represented in this following patch were developed by Raphael
> Ouazana raphael.ouazana(a)linagora.com. These modifications are not subject to
> any
> license of Linagora.
>
> The attached modifications to OpenLDAP Software are subject to the following
> notice:
> Copyright 2010 Raphael Ouazana, Linagora
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification,
> are permitted only as authorized by the OpenLDAP Public License.
The code patch looks OK to me, but could you also provide a patch for the
README file summarizing this new behavior? I'm not too keen on supporting
groups of anything other than DNs in general, but I see the usefulness of it.
However the potential performance hit can be quite a concern.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
ssalley(a)likewise.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Scott Salley
> Version: HEAD
> OS: Linux
> URL: http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-defi…
> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234)
>
>
> Note that a similar issue/contribution was submitted in 2008 (Contrib/5369) and
> appears to have been 'lost'.
> The patch http://archives.likewiseopen.org/~ssalley/OpenLDAP/scott-salley-100601-defi…
> makes it possible to use the GSSAPI support in OpenLDAP by:
>
> 1. Defining --with-gssapi in configure which
> a. Checks for appropriate header files
> b. Checks for the appropriate library
> c. Defines HAVE_GSSAPI to 1 in everything is in order
>
> 2. Exposing ldap_gssapi_bind_s in ldap.h
I am still disinclined to publish any of this. The standard mechanism for
using GSSAPI in LDAP is via SASL. I see no benefit to propagating more
non-standard one-off ldap_XXX_bind flavors. It's a poor design approach and it
increases our support workload for no appreciable gain. It increases
application developer's workload as well, if they have to test for the
existence of multiple flavors of ldap_XXX_bind and code for them each
separately in their apps.
If you really want to have "direct" access to other authentication mechanisms,
the right way to do this is by adding new LDAP_AUTH_xxx definitions that can
be muxed out from a single ldap_bind API. Of course, by the time you've
implemented option parsing so that generic client code can be configured with
arbitrary Bind mechanisms, you would have re-implemented SASL.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/