[Samba] id mapping
rpenny at samba.org
Sun Sep 19 21:25:58 UTC 2021
On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 16:45 -0400, Nick Couchman wrote:
> This may be a side note/topic, or some nuance, but I've seen this
> stated multiple times on the list in absolute terms like this, and it
> isn't strictly true, and very much depends on what you mean by "use
> sssd with Samba." Do the two work together and talk to each other?
> No. But can they be used side-by-side on the same system? Yes. I run
> them both on the same system in my environment in a couple of places,
> and it works perfectly fine. Do I recommend it? Absolutely not. I
> think in the vast majority of places - 7x9s - it makes more sense to
> just run winbind with Samba, and adding sssd provides nothing but
> more headaches - another configuration to maintain, another set of
> problems to debug, etc. But I've run into situations where I needed
> sssd on the same system as Samba, and it can be done.
You used to be able to use sssd with Samba, but from Samba 4.8.0 , the
smbd binary must go via winbind to get to AD. This means, because sssd
has its own version of the winbind libs, you cannot use sssd anymore.
It may seem to work, but it will not work correctly and it isn't
supported any longer.
> Not sure I would agree, but okay. Maybe for Patrick's benefit you
> could provide some additional detail and reasoning on this?
The whole idea behind AD is to get centralised authentication
management (amongst other things) and using standalone servers with AD
means having user & group management in multiple places, with different
ID's on most machines. The different ID's may not be a problem, until
someone decides that the standalone server needs joining to the domain
(and this will happen), this is when the tears start.
> > Actually, it's definitely possible - I can think of at least two ways
> this can be accomplished:
> * Use sssd for NSS info instead of Winbind. Again, I'm not saying you
> _should_, I'm saying you can, and sssd seems to be deterministic in
> its ID mapping algorithm (similar to Winbind's idmap_autorid
I think you missed that sssd is no longer supported with a Samba
> * Use sssd's LDAP backend, and have the uid, gid, and shell
> attributes present for users in your AD schema. Yes, this adds
> further management and complication that may be undesirable, but it
> is doable, and is the most deterministic method :-).
You may be able to do this, but it is totally unsupported and you may
as well use nslcd (which isn't supported as well).
> Again, I know sssd comes with its own challenges, but I see all these
> absolute statements of "you cannot do this" and "that is impossible"
> when my real-world experience says it is possible. Whatever I'm doing
> wrong is working in my environment.
You are late to the party, you appear to be trying to make all the same
mistakes that Debian based distro users made years ago. Forget sssd, it
is no longer supported by Samba (not that it was ever really supported)
and isn't needed.
That will allow you ONE local Unix user and 1998 AD Unix users
I wouldn't recommended it.
> Why one local UNIX user? This doesn't make any sense.
Exactly. Your DOMAIN range starts at '1001' and the Unix range starts
at '1000', you do the maths, I come up with '1'
Linux reserves the first 999 ID's for system users & groups, normal
local Unix users & groups start at '1000' (do not confuse these with
users in AD), so your Domain range needs to be above this. This is all
explained in the wikipage I pointed you to.
> tdb is the default backend that the Samba winbind config recommends
> or defaults to, but it isn't the only one. You can look at
> winbind's rid or autorid backends if you prefer something more
> deterministic and less random (tdb isn't really random, just first-
> come, first-served on a per-system basis).
The 'tdb' backend is the recommended backend for the default '*' and
this domain is meant for the 'Well Known SIDs' and anything outside the
'DOMAIN' domain (not including local Unix users).
You should only require a few local Unix users (users in /etc/passwd),
because all AD users can be Unix users.
Why? You've stated this multiple times, and you haven't really
> provided any clear reasoning for the original user as to why you
> think joining to the domain is the best option. Maybe it is, but
> could you help him understand?
There is a lot of baggage that gets dragged along with upgrading an
NT4-style domain to an AD domain, amongst which is the old idea of
using low ID's. This was only required when you had to have Samba users
that were also Unix users in /etc/passwd, this is no longer required
and should never be set up this way, just store everything in Samba AD.
Of course, this is just my personal opinion, setting up a new AD domain
gives you a fresh start, but you must use it to its best advantage,
which to me means joining all machines to the domain.
More information about the samba