[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 94-99 Read and use per-service PAC type

[Martin Kosek]

On 03/01/2013 09:20 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 03:28 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 13:02 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 02/28/2013 12:42 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 08:44:35AM +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/27/2013 06:48 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sumit,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a good idea and would prevent the magic default PAC type, yes.
>>>>>> Though I would not add this service-specific setting to global IPA config object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would rather like to see that in the service tree, for example as a
>>>>>> configuration option of the service root which could be controlled with
>>>>>> serviceconfig-* commands (we already have dnsconfig, trustconfig), e.g:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # ipa serviceconfig-add-pacmap --service=nfs --pac-type=NONE
>>>>>> # ipa serviceconfig-add-pacmap --service=cifs --pac-type=PAD
>>>>>> # ipa serviceconfig-show
>>>>>>   Default PAC Map: nfs:NONE, cifs:PAD
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you thinking of having this in addition to the for-all-services
>>>>> default values in cn=ipaConfig,cn=etc or shall those be dropped? I don't
>>>>> like the first case because then three different objects needs to be
>>>>> consulted to find out which is the right type. This wouldn't be an issue
>>>>> for the plugin, but I think it is hard for the user/admin to follow.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, you are right.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the current defaults shall be dropped I think this is a major change
>>>>> because it will require changes in the current CLI and WebUI which will
>>>>> be visible to the users. I'm not against this change, I'm just wondering
>>>>> if it is worth the effort for the next release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe an argument to keep this is in global default is that the settings
>>>>> are used for the host/*.* services as well which are in a different
>>>>> sub-tree of the cn=accounts container. Additionally in future we might
>>>>> want apply those setting to the user TGTs as well?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that was actually my point. That we are mixing service-specific PAC
>>>> "rules" to the global setting. Which may be shared with host/*.* principals and
>>>> user principals. This automatic PAC rules may require some designing so that is
>>>> is generally usable.
>>>
>>> I think putting everything in the general config is more understandable
>>> and discoverable. These per-service defaults are basically exceptions to
>>> the general rule so it make sense to keep everything together.
>>>
>>> Simo.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, if these are really just an exceptions to the general rule (and there will
>> not be too many of them), I think we can leave it in config entry. But if we
>> expect to have exceptions for other types of entries (hosts, users), I think we
>> should rather use something like "service:nfs:NONE" do distinguish this exception.
>>
>> Question is, do we want to implement the interface and processing for that in
>> current Sumit's patches or do we use that is they are?
> 
> I would like to update the patches so that they can handle the
> service:TYPE style entry and replace the current update code with just
> adding nfs:NONE to the global options. I will update the design page
> accordingly, too.

Ok. If the update procedure shrinks just to adding service:nfs:NONE then it'd
be great.

> 
> I would prefer if the enhancements needed for the CLI and WebUI can be
> covered by other/new tickets, but I'm happy to add the needed
> information to the design page too.
> 
> bye,
> Sumit

I am OK with adding the interface for this special exception later. In that
case, a ticket + note in the design as you mentioned would be enough.

Thanks,
Martin