From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guillaume Rousse Subject: Re: autofs 5.0.1-rc1 still doesn't find master map in ldap automatically Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:04:05 +0200 Message-ID: <44EF1F75.5090902@inria.fr> References: <44EDB98B.8050201@inria.fr> <44EEA538.8090203@inria.fr> <44EEEC55.2040101@inria.fr> <44EEF1E6.7040008@inria.fr> <1156511928.30971.12.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1156512652.30971.19.camel@raven.themaw.net> <44EF1747.5010103@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: autofs@linux.kernel.org Piete.Brooks--autofs@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote: >> OK, I found the issue: when all you have is mapname, and you have to use >> default server and base, you should use LDAP_SCOPE_SUBTREE scope for >> your query, not LDAP_SCOPE_ONELEVEL > > Why? Because using LDAP_SCOPE_ONELEVEL assume your master map is directly beyond your default base, which is likely to be wrong. > As I said before, it works for me as it is. I see no need to change it. > > I've just had my wrist slapped for suggesting doing three queries for the > three "common" schemas, so changing from a one level search (which should be > very fast as I'd not expect much at the top level) to searching the WHOLE tree > (which I expect to be several orders of magnitude slower) would seem not to be > a good idea. Only once, for the initial master map lookup, and only if no explicit map name has been given. > > If you do the search manually, does it work? Yes, because ldapsearch default's scope is sub. > Are the two programmes using the same conf file (e.g. std /etc/ldap.conf vs > /etc/openldap/ldap.conf)? of course. ldap client use ldap library, as does automount. -- Guillaume Rousse Projet Estime, INRIA Domaine de Voluceau Rocquencourt - B.P. 105 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex - France