[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] Re: Changes to use a single database for dogtag and IPA

Wed Nov 21 09:46:48 UTC 2012

On 11/20/2012 02:59 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 03:14 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 02:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> On 11/16/2012 02:25 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/2012 11:23 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2012 07:17 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2012 05:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2012 03:19 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Recently, the specfile changed (dce53e4) and the patch for
>>>>>>>> changed Dogtag
>>>>>>>> defaults made it to master independently (91e477b). Attaching
>>>>>>>> rebased patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that to continue development on f17, you will need to use the
>>>>>>>> dogtag-devel
>>>>>>>> repo:
>>>>>>>>     sudo yum-config-manager
>>>>>>>> --add-repo=http://nkinder.fedorapeople.org/dogtag-devel/dogtag-devel-fedora.repo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 03:57 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For convenience, I've also pushed the changes to a personal
>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>> To fetch to branch "pviktori-dogtag-10" you can do:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        git fetch -f git://github.com/encukou/freeipa.git
>>>>>>>>> dogtag-10:pviktori-dogtag-10
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started reviewing the patches, and found the first thing that looks
>>>>>>> suspicious. I had IPA with 2 databases, then upgraded it to
>>>>>>> single-database
>>>>>>> IPA, the upgrade was OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But when I uninstalled the IPA, PKI-IPA dirsrv instance was not
>>>>>>> removed
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> when I installed single-db IPA afterwards, I had 2 dirsrv
>>>>>>> instances running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right. This is an uninstaller error already present in 2.2:
>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3258
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll start looking into it tomorrow, if nothing more important
>>>>>> shows up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. But this is definitely not a show stopper,
>>>>> running
>>>>> additional DS instance seems more or less benign and as you pointed
>>>>> out, it is
>>>>> rather an old bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are bigger issues. Now I focused on ipa-replica-manage and
>>>>> ipa-csreplica-manage tools. ipa-replica-manage gets confused with the
>>>>> additional replication agreements in IPA dirsrv instance (although
>>>>> targeted to
>>>>> nsDS5ReplicaRoot: o=ipaca).
>>>>>
>>>>> First scenario: 3 IPA servers with CA in this topology:
>>>>>
>>>>> B - A - C
>>>>>
>>>>> On A:
>>>>> # ipa-replica-manage list `hostname`
>>>>> vm-055.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>> vm-070.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>> vm-055.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>> vm-070.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>>
>>>>> it should not display agreements that are for IPA only, not IPA CA
>>>>> ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, when I try to connect B to C, ipa-replica-manage succeeded:
>>>>> [B] # ipa-replica-manage connect C
>>>>> Connected 'B' to 'C'
>>>>>
>>>>> This changed the topology to:
>>>>>       A
>>>>>     /   \
>>>>> B   -  C
>>>>>
>>>>> But ipa-csreplica-manage connect did not succeed then:
>>>>> [B] # ipa-csreplica-manage connect C
>>>>> Directory Manager password:
>>>>>
>>>>> This replication agreement already exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Del command also failed for me:
>>>>> [A] ipa-replica-manage del [C]
>>>>>
>>>>> Still trying to investigate why. If I manage to get some workable
>>>>> fix during my
>>>>> investigations, I will attach it later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> The fix for that for easier than expected. Attached patch restored
>>>> the previous
>>>> functionality for ipa-(cs)replica-manage. I tried that with all basic
>>>> commands
>>>> - add, del, connect, disconnect and it worked fine so far.
>>>>
>>>> But this was a case with all D10 masters, I will need to try if that
>>>> flies with
>>>> D9->D10 replicas or upgraded D9 masters.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> I managed to create a 2.2 (F17) -> 3.1 (F18) replica, everything seem
>>> to work
>>> well. I just think we will need to also backport the previous patch at
>>> least to
>>> 3.0 and 2.2 versions to fix errors with ipa-replica-manage replication
>>> management tool. I created a ticket for this purpose:
>>>
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3262
>>>
>>> Attaching a patch for IPA 2.2 branch in case somebody is also testing
>>> it. With
>>> this patch, I was able to list, force-sync, re-initialize, connect,
>>> disconnect
>>> from 2.2 to 3.1 replica without any errors.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>> I checked ipa-csreplica-install, and found some more problems.
>>
>> In the "connect" and "disconnect" subcommands we now assume both masters
>> use port 389 for the PKI DS. While the number is relatively easily
>> parametrized, the assumption that both sides use the same port seems to
>> run pretty deep.
>> I'm working on a patch to detect if the remote server has merged DBs and
>> use the appropriate port.
> 
> Attaching patches to do this.
> Patch 0100 adds an argument to IPAdmin to overrides guessing of the protocol to
> use.
> Patch 0101 modifies ipa-csreplica-manage to figure out the ports of the DSs
> involved and use those.
> 
> Note that this touches code shared with ipa-replica-manage, please re-test that
> as well.
> 

Works fine, I was able to create a network of few IPA 2.2 replicas and IPA 3.1
replicas and use ipa-replica-manage and ipa-csreplica-manage to play with the
agreements. No regression discovered so far.

I just see that in patch 101 you touch setup_replication and force TLS as a
default. But in this case, r_sslport parameter is never used and we can remove it.

In 101, you also set LDAP+TLS as default connection protocol with
+        super(CSReplicationManager, self).__init__(
+            realm, hostname, dirman_passwd, port, starttls=True)
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wouldn't we want to make LDAP+TLS as a default also in a bunch of
ReplicationManager initializations in ipa-replica-manage? Otherwise, we use
ldaps/SSL by default. AFAIU, LDAP+TLS is preferred over ldaps/SSL so this would
be a good step to do. Adding Rob and Simo to CC to correct me if I miss
anything and we want to keep using ldaps/SSL by default.

Martin