[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] Add DRM to IPA
rcritten at redhat.com
Tue Apr 8 13:52:49 UTC 2014
Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 10:40 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>> Ade Lee wrote:
>>> This patch adds the capability of installing a Dogtag DRM
>>> to an IPA instance. With this patch, when ipa-server-install
>>> is run, a Dogtag CA and a Dogtag DRM are created. The DRM
>>> shares the same tomcat instance and DS instance as the Dogtag CA.
>>> Moreover, the same admin user/agent (and agent cert) can be used
>>> for both subsystems. Certmonger is also confgured to monitor the
>>> new subsystem certificates.
>>> It is also possible to clone the DRM. When the IPA instance is
>>> cloned, if --enable-ca and --enable-drm are specified, the DRM
>>> is cloned as well.
>>> Installing a DRM requires the user to have a Dogtag CA instance.
>>> We can look into possibly relaxing that requirement in a later patch.
>>> I am still working on patches for a ipa-drm-install script, which
>>> would be used to add a DRM to an existing master (that includes
>>> a dogtag CA), or an existing clone.
>>> Please review,
>> Yikes, I wonder if the changes to ipaserver/install/cainstance.py should be
>> pushed ASAP.
> Oops, looks like a change that should go to IPA 3.3.x. What is the implication?
>> freeipa-spec.in needs a dependency on pki-kra.
> Let us stop here. Please see a following RFE I filed:
> I would prefer it KRA files and specifics would be in a new subpackage like
> freeipa-server-kra. Otherwise we will need to rework it again when we would be
> splitting CA to freeipa-server-pki in 4.1.
Yes, that is a question I didn't ask: Is the DRM going to be configured
by default on all new installs?
> I would prefer to start the right modularization now as I do not think that
> every FreeIPA server needs to run CA/KRA, i.e. it does not need to have the
> bits installed either.
I think the decision on a separate sub-package will be dependent upon
whether it is default or not, otherwise we can get away with
freeipa-server-ca and just lump everything in there.
> I am also quite worried about the duplication that the new drminstance.py
> introduces. There is a lot of functions which do more or less the same thing
> and have most of the handling code the same with only a very small and
> predictable pki/kra change. For example __http_proxy function seems to be
> exactly the same.
> It would be great to avoid this duplication and rather have some common ground
> utilized by both PKI and KRA. Otherwise it will be very difficult to maintain
> the new code.
I touched on some of that too, but some of this is just inevitable I
think which is why I didn't pound on it too hard. An abstraction would
be nice, but I'm not sure abstracting for two things, and only in the
installer, is worth the effort. I could be wrong.
More information about the Freeipa-devel