[Samba] [PATCH] Re: Samba 4.1.17 classic update w/LDAP - parsing error

[Rowland Penny]

On 01/11/15 18:30, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-10-31 at 10:45 +0000, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On 31/10/15 08:51, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 14:35 +0100, Mgr. Peter Tuharsky wrote:
>>>> Hallo,
>>>>
>>>> I have two news. The first one: the patch probably works. Second:
>>>> there
>>>> is another bug.
>>>>
>>>> When I encountered the bug again after patching, I have raised
>>>> debug
>>>> level and figured out that the problem is with user "guest" - he
>>>> was
>>>> in
>>>> our old domain, however samba-tool probably creates him
>>>> automatically
>>>> and then couldn't import him.
>>>>
>>>> So, please fix the tool so that it ignores such user, or update
>>>> the
>>>> DOCS
>>>> so that forbidden users are known for admin before attempting the
>>>> classicupdate.
>>>>
>>>> The import FINALLY works with patched 4.3.1. But when I tested
>>>> again
>>>> with 4.1.17, it ends up with the bug. So the patch seems working
>>>> for
>>>> its
>>>> purpose, but there is the bug with guest user and that needs to
>>>> get
>>>> fixed.
>>> You are welcome to apply for an account to change the wiki page:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/samba-tool/domain/classicup
>>> grad
>>> e/HOWTO#Preparations
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Andrew Bartlett
>> Rather than adding something to the wiki, how about adding something
>> like this to upgrade.py:
>>
>>               if username.lower() == 'guest':
>>                   logger.warn("You have a user '%s' in your existing
>> directory, \
>> this will be replaced by the builtin user 'Guest") %
>> (userdata[username])
>>
>> I 'think' what happened was the upgrade ran the intial provision and
>> this created the builtin user 'Guest' and then when the upgrade tried
>> to
>> add the user 'guest', this failed because it already existed.
> The number of potential conflicts here seems endless, I would rather
> not list them by hand in the code.  We can either have it print a
> message based on a set-intersection with a search just after the
> provision, and/or we can improve how the 'add' errors are presented to
> make them clearer.
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>

OK Andrew, if you don't want to put something into upgrade.py (something 
I can quite understand), I will discuss this with Marc and see if we can 
put something on the wiki, after all, we are only talking about 3 or 
possibly 4 users created by the provision, Administrator, guest, krbtgt 
and possibly dns-DCNAME if using Bind9

Rowland