[389-devel] Re: Please review/comment: [389 Project] #48833: 389 showing inconsistent values for shadowMax and shadowWarning in 1.3.5.1

Thanks for your comments, William.

On 05/31/2016 07:22 PM, William Brown wrote:

On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 17:48 -0700, Noriko Hosoi wrote:  

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48833    There are 2 proposals.  I'd like to have your thoughts which one would   be preferable.    https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48833/0001-Ticket-48833-389-showing-inconsistent-values-for-sha.2.patch  git patch file (master) -- second proposal -- this patch allows the   password policy values and shadow account values in sync.  If we choose this option, DS Console Password Policy panel needs to be   modified to support the larger value than INT_MAX.    https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48833/0001-Ticket-48833-389-showing-inconsistent-values-for-sha.patch  git patch file (master) -- first proposal -- shadow account values won't   be touched if they already exist in an entry.  Restrictions:  1. If objectclass: shadowaccount is set and there is no shadow account   values in an entry, the shadowmax, min, and warning are filled by   calculating them from the password policy values.  The maximum value of   calculated shadowMax is 24855 (== 2^31-1 / (24 * 60 * 60)).  2. Even if the values of the password policy are updated, shadow account   values are not effected.  

    I'm for option 1. I believe our shadow and password policy should be in sync. This prevents admins making mistakes, and allows  clients to gain functionality.     There is no reasonable benefit IMO to having shadow and ldap policy out of sync.   

I'm worried there could be administrators who want to have a full control on the shadow values with no interest on the DS password policy...  I guess the reporter of this ticket is one of them.

Thanks,
--noriko

It also means that a seamless upgrade occurs, where existing sites, with existing (bad) shadow data, well begin to get the  benefit of a now *working* shadow value.      Thanks,    

--  389-devel mailing list  389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org