[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0325] Add Domain Level feature

Tue May 26 11:51:48 UTC 2015

On 05/26/2015 12:39 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/26/2015 11:57 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> Dne 25.5.2015 v 17:15 Tomas Babej napsal(a):
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/25/2015 12:42 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/25/2015 07:30 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>> Dne 22.5.2015 v 12:36 Petr Vobornik napsal(a):
>>>>>> On 05/22/2015 07:08 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>> Dne 21.5.2015 v 18:18 Tomas Babej napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 04:07 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:59 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:56 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:51 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:49 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:36 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2015 03:22 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Domain level is just a single integer and it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treated as such,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's no need for an LDAPObject plugin and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implemetation could be as simple as (from top of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untested):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right, I also considered this approach, but as far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the permission handling for the global DomainLevel entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ludwig, I changed the path for the global entry to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cn=DomainLevel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know this particular DN was added to the design by Simo, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why do we want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use CamelCase with LDAP object?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't "cn=Domain Level,cn=ipa,cn=etc,SUFFIX" be a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it? This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the last time we can change it, so I am asking now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be stuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this DN forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't mind using ""cn=Domain Level" ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but where does the entry live, here you say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cn=Domain Level,cn=ipa,cn=etc,SUFFIX"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the design page it is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cn=DomainLevel,cn=etc,SUFFIX
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current version of the topology plugin is looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cn=DomainLevel,cn=ipa,cn=etc,SUFFIX"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I want to change it to do a search on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectclass=ipaDomainLevelConfig
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see - we all need to unify the location apparently. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> updated the
>>>>>>>>>>>> design page
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use "cn=Domain Level,cn=ipa,cn=etc,SUFFIX". Tomas, please
>>>>>>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>>>>>> the updated
>>>>>>>>>>>> patch set, it should be an extremely simple change :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer the ipa parent and the space in the name, so I'm glad we
>>>>>>>>>>> could agree
>>>>>>>>>>> on this without much bikeshedding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Updated patch attaced.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tomas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I still see
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +# Create default Domain Level entry if it does not exist
>>>>>>>>>> +dn: cn=DomainLevel,cn=ipa,cn=etc,$SUFFIX
>>>>>>>>>> +default: objectClass: top
>>>>>>>>>> +default: objectClass: nsContainer
>>>>>>>>>> +default: objectClass: ipaDomainLevelConfig
>>>>>>>>>> +default: ipaDomainLevel: 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, the space eluded me there, thanks for the catch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A new iteration of the patch, including the server-side checks
>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> installers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2015-May/msg00228.html
>>>>>>> - I still don't agree that the plugin should be based on LDAPObject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, with LDAPObject base, Web UI for this feature is
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> more simpler because it can rely on existing conventions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following this logic, should *everything* be based on LDAPObject,
>>>>> because it would satisfy the convetion? I don't think so. The convetion
>>>>> should not apply here, because domain level is conceptually *not* an
>>>>> object, it is a property. IMHO having a clean API should be preferred
>>>>> over implementation convenience.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not have strong opinions over this. Attached version implements
>>>> a lightweight approach to the domainlevel related commands.
>>>>
>>>> Tomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fixes a slight schema glitch.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> 1)
>>
>> +            # Detect the current domain level
>> +            try:
>> +                current = remote_api.Command['domainlevel_show']['result']
>> +            except KeyError:
>> +                # If we're joining an older master, domainlevel_show is
>> not
>> +                # available
>> +                current = 0
>>
>> KeyError? That does not look right. remote_api differs from api only in
>> that it sets up ldap2 to connect to the remote server, but it uses local
>> plugins and everything, so domainlevel_show should always be available.
>>
>>
>> 2) Could you also set supported domain levels in
>> install/share/master-entry.ldif? I think it makes sense to have them
>> there right from the beginning of server install.
>>
>>
>> 3) I think you should use the per-plugin api object instead of
>> ipalib.api when constructing DNs (domainlevel_dn, container_masters).
>>
>>
>> 4) I would say the opposite of "domainlevel-set" should be
>> "domainlevel-get", not "domainlevel-show". IMO it's OK since property
>> commands are an uncharted territory and don't have to (maybe even
>> shouldn't) use the same convention as objects.
>>
>>
>> 5)
>>
>> +    'System: Read Domain Level': {
>> +        'ipapermlocation': DN('cn=masters,cn=ipa,cn=etc', api.env.basedn),
>> +        'ipapermtargetfilter': {'(objectclass=ipadomainlevelconfig)'},
>> +        'ipapermbindruletype': 'all',
>> +        'ipapermright': {'read', 'search', 'compare'},
>> +        'ipapermdefaultattr': {
>> +            'ipadomainlevel', 'objectclass',
>> +        },
>> +    },
>>
>> Shouldn't ipapermlocation say "cn=Domain Level,cn=ipa,cn=etc"?
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review, I fixed all the issues raised.
> 
> Tomas
> 

Added a small fix for replca install, to avoid duplicated creation of
the domainlevel entry.

Tomas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-tbabej-0325-11-Add-Domain-Level-feature.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 25217 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20150526/bbeacbb1/attachment.bin>