[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ldap problem



Hello.  I just yesterday finished setting up a lab with ldap and nfs for a group
of amd64 machines.  It seems to be working smoothly at the moment.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 05:04:48PM -0700, Matt Dunford wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 02:06:17PM -0400, Patrick Flaherty wrote:
> > I'm a bit stumped on this, but a few things you could do to humor 
> > me/double check.
> > 
> > check for duplicate username/group names. both in the system files and 
> > in ldap.
> 
> There's definately some duplicates (tty, nobody, etc).  But I'm not
> sure what will happen if I take those out, the ldap server being in
> production and all..

Is this wise?  I ask, because I honestly don't know.  I would assume that this
is a bad idea.  I would think there should be no possible dupblicate user
mappings.  Something is bound to get confused.  In general I also think that
there is probably no reason whatsoever to share system user account information
anyway.  Each machine should handle system accounts locally.  System group
information seems a bit trickier, though, since system group membership
information would not be shared.

I have been using getent to see what name service is reporting as all available
users and groups.

> > also make sure that nscd dosn't start before your ldap daemon
> > 
> > my pam ssh file looks more like
> > auth        required      pam_nologin.so
> > auth        sufficient    pam_ldap.so
> > auth        sufficient    pam_unix.so shadow use_first_pass
> > auth        required      pam_deny.so

I use the configuration recommended in the libpam-ldap README.Debian that looks
like this:

  auth [success=1 default=ignore] pam_unix.so
  auth required pam_ldap.so use_first_pass
  auth required pam_permit.so

for essentially all of my common-* pam config files (the above is my
common-auth).  This configuration seems to work for me.

I wish I could be of more help.  How do you know where it is that sshd hangs
during the connection attempt?

jamie.



Reply to: