[Samba] samba4 kerberized nfs4 with sssd ad client

Jason Keltz jas at eecs.yorku.ca
Fri Jul 24 15:03:39 UTC 2020

On 7/24/2020 10:53 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:

> On 24/07/2020 15:45, Jason Keltz via samba wrote:
>> On 7/24/2020 7:25 AM, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:
>>> On 2020-07-24 12:57, Jason Keltz via samba wrote:
>>>> Hi Rowland,
>>>> In effect, I'm still using Samba on the DC, which is why I still 
>>>> thought this was relevant on the mailing list. :)
>>>> The reason in particular that I was looking at sssd client as 
>>>> opposed to winbind was that  we are running CentOS 7. I know if I 
>>>> want to use the latest Samba 4.12 on the clients, I'll have 
>>>> problems with gnutls because it's outdated in CentOS 7. Yes, 
>>>> someone has figured out a way around that by compiling a separate 
>>>> gnutls, but I'm just not 100% comfortable with that. It's still an 
>>>> option.  The problem is that if I spend my days figuring out how to 
>>>> upgrade hundreds of custom CentOS machines from 7 to 8 (which I 
>>>> will no doubt eventually do) then I won't have time to figure out 
>>>> integration of this domain into AD. If I start with AD then I can't 
>>>> really use the latest  4.12. maybe that's fine because eventually 
>>>> we will move to CentOS 8. However, what if a later Samba version 
>>>> requires  an even later version of gnutls that CentOS 8 doesn't run 
>>>> with in the future!  Then I'll again be stuck in this position and 
>>>> may have to upgrade the OS clients to use the later Samba. There's al
>>>>   ways going to be this chicken and egg problem of course. That's 
>>>> just the environment we work in. That's why I was hoping that if I 
>>>> used SSSD then I could somewhat punt the problem . As long as the 
>>>> main DC was running the latest OS and could run the latest Samba 
>>>> then the clients could use their SSSD to connect. In addition, the 
>>>> SSSD configuration for AD is so trivial.  The winbind 
>>>> configuration, I have tested and it works but it's definately more 
>>>> complex. I have to see whether it handles token groups because the 
>>>> SSSD configuration without token groups was very slow using SSSD 
>>>> because of the number of groups.  I'm not fixed at using sssd but 
>>>> just thinking about all the options. There are always many ways to 
>>>> solve the same problem. :)
>>>> Jason.
>>>> On Jul. 24, 2020, 2:22 a.m., at 2:22 a.m., Rowland penny via samba 
>>>> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/07/2020 03:42, Jason Keltz via samba wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> I have a samba DC, let's call it dc1.ad.example.com.
>>>>>> I have two members of the domain - server1.ad.example.com and
>>>>>> server2.ad.example.com.   They are not running smbd and winbind.
>>>>>> Instead, they are running SSSD with AD backend.
>>>>> Sorry Jason, wrong mailing list, we do not produce sssd, so cannot
>>>>> support it, because we know very little about it. I suggest you 
>>>>> try the
>>>>> sssd-users mailing list.
>>>>> If you want to use Samba instead, I am more than willing to help you
>>>>> with this, it is very easy and there is the bonus of being able to
>>>>> share
>>>>> files.
>>>>> Rowland
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>>>>> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>>> Hi Jason,
>>> I have got a few CentOS servers as Samba AD members. I found out 
>>> that upgrading them to CentOS 8 isn't worth the hazzle, a completely 
>>> different paradigm, and lots of migration issues to solve. As you 
>>> have got lots of machines, it could probably pay off to create your 
>>> own solution, but in your place, I would get nervous that every new 
>>> update would break something.
>>> I'm going to migrate my few servers to Debian Buster instead. It 
>>> seems to be a much less painful way. Up until recently, I have 
>>> exclusively used CentOS, but I have found Debian very capable, and 
>>> not very different to work with, compared to CentOS 7. The update 
>>> policy is also fairly conservative.
>>> Just my five cents...
>>> Best regards,
>>> Peter 
>> Hi Peter,
>> Our client systems need to continue to run CentOS because a variety 
>> of software that we use requires CentOS/RHEL.  Some of the software 
>> is very version specific.  I can't even upgrade to CentOS 8 until 
>> certain software is compatible with 8.  Running a separate Linux 
>> distribution on the servers and the clients is possible, of course, 
>> but in a small team, just a headache to handle multiple OS paths.   
>> If we were a bigger team, this is definately something I would 
>> consider though.
>> Jason.
> Rule one: Never run software that is tied to a specific OS, you get 
> trapped, as you have found. If some entity tries selling you software 
> that requires a specific OS (and worse a specific version), tell them 
> to **** off.
> Just what are these 'softwares' that require Centos ?
> Rowland 

HI Rowland,

If only we had that choice our lives would be so much easier! In the 
education world, we are told the software  that needs to run and we need 
to provide the environment that will suitably run it. :)   At the 
moment, the software that comes to mind on first thought is engineering 
software like Cadence (which plans to support RHEL8 soon), Synopsys 
(which may support it), and COMSOL, but this is just at first thought.  
We support hundreds of packages.


More information about the samba mailing list