Hello,

I’d like to get your thoughts on an issue I encountered with
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn after the OS update.

We’re running IPA version 4.10.2 on RHEL 9.3, and after applying an OS
update (dnf update), it upgraded to RHEL 9.4 and IPA version
4.11.0. The update went smoothly, and I'd say thanks to the IPA team.

But, I ran into an issue with nsslapd-anonlimitsdn. By default,
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn has global resource limits, and we need more for
our anonymous queries. Following the official documentation
<https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_directory_server/11/html/administration_guide/ldapsearch-ex-complex-range#Setting_Resource_Limits_for-anonymous-binds>,
we
created a custom user entry and applied it to anonymous binds, and
everything worked fine.

## before
$ ldapsearch -xLLL -H ldap://ipa.example.com -b
cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com uid|grep ^uid|wc -l
Administrative limit exceeded (11)
4998

## action
$ cat custom_anonymous_limits.ldif
dn: cn=custom_anonymous_limits,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com
objectclass: nsContainer
objectclass: top
cn: custom_anonymous_limits
nsSizeLimit: 15000
nsLookThroughLimit: 15000
nsTimeLimit: 60

$ ldapadd -f custom_anonymous_limits.ldif
$ dsconf EXAMPLE-COM config replace
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn="cn=custom_anonymous_limits,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com"
$ dsconf EXAMPLE-COM config get nsslapd-anonlimitsdn
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn: cn=custom_anonymous_limits,cn=etc,dc=example,dc=com

## after
$ ldapsearch -xLLL -H ldap://ipa.example.com -b
cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com uid|grep ^uid|wc -l
12500


After the OS patch, the default limits and default user for
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn were restored. Our custom user still exists but
was no longer active:

$ dsconf EXAMPLE-COM config get nsslapd-anonlimitsdn
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn: cn=anonymous-limits,cn=etc,dc=example,dc=com

I had to reactivate our custom user manually:
$ dsconf EXAMPLE-COM config replace
nsslapd-anonlimitsdn="cn=custom_anonymous_limits,cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com"

Is this a bug, or am I missing something? Any feedback would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
Vahit Tabak
-- 
_______________________________________________
FreeIPA-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to