[Freeipa-devel] FreeIPA 4.0.3?

[Ludwig Krispenz]

Hi,

I alread had sent a patch for review, It is exactly like yours with one 
exception:
65c61
< +default:allowWeakCipher: off
---
 > +addifnew:allowWeakCipher: off

I tested with default, but it was ignored - is default only used for new 
entries ?

On 09/12/2014 04:08 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 13:17 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 09/12/2014 10:25 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2014 10:13 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/2014 09:37 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/2014 03:21 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:48 +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/11/2014 04:43 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:39 +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/11/2014 04:38 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/11/2014 04:31 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/11/2014 04:26 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we will need to add the F21 389-ds-base build to FreeIPA Copr:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mkosek/freeipa/
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that F20 users can upgrade to the newest FreeIPA. Are there any
>>>>>>>>>>>> known issues
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the F21 389-ds-base build that would prevent upstream FreeIPA
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.0.x to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> based on it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If yes, we may need to include the patch in Fedora 21 downstream only
>>>>>>>>>>>> after all..
>>>>>>>>>>> We're basing the Fedora 21 Alpha downstream on FreeIPA 4.0.3, so we
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't include the patch even there.
>>>>>>>>>>> There better be no such issues.
>>>>>>>>>> what do you mean by "no such issues" ? I don't think that 389/F21 will
>>>>>>>>>> be the first bug free software. At the moment Thierry is investigating a
>>>>>>>>>> crash in dna-plugin and Noriko a memory leak, which could be in F21 -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> any known issues in the F21 389-ds-base build that would prevent
>>>>>>>>> upstream FreeIPA 4.0.x to be based on it
>>>>>>>> Yes. 389 will not start if weak ciphers are specified. Currently,
>>>>>>>> FreeIPA specifies weak ciphers. This means that FreeIPA in F21 doesn't
>>>>>>>> work at all because the DS will never start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need this patch merged: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47838
>>>>>> Done: thanks everyone on the DS side!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, we need an F21 build of 389-ds-base.
>>>>>> Done: thanks nhosoi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we need to merge Ludwig's IPA patch from this thread with a
>>>>>>>> versioned dependency on the new 389-ds-base build.
>>>>>> New patch attached which includes a versioned dep on the new DS.
>>>>> ipa-server-install still fails for me, even when I use
>>>>> 389-ds-base-1.3.3.2-1.fc20.x86_64:
>>>>>
>>>>> # ipa-server-install
>>>>> ...
>>>>>    [12/13]: restarting httpd
>>>>>    [13/13]: configuring httpd to start on boot
>>>>> Done configuring the web interface (httpd).
>>>>> Applying LDAP updates
>>>>> Unexpected error - see /var/log/ipaserver-install.log for details:
>>>>> ObjectclassViolation: attribute "allowweakciphers" not allowed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you simply use a wrong config name - have extra "s" in the end. It is
>>>>> defined as
>>>> that typo was already in my first draft of the patch, sorry
>>>>> allowWeakCipher in "cn=encryption,cn=config". allowWeakCipher: [on | off]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, do we really need to put it to "off" in the updates? AFAIU, it is off
>>>>> by default in our config and with current setting, users could not put it to
>>>>> "on" (for whatever reason) without the value being overwritten with every run
>>>>> of FreeIPA upgrade.
>>>> could there be an upgrade from a install not yet using that params. should
>>>> "only:allowWeakCipher" be replaced by "addifnew" ?
>>> You can try "default:allowWeakCiphers: off" - it would set the attribute to off
>>> if it was not there before.
>>>
>>> Given you are probably working on updated version, I would also recommend
>>> following
>>>
>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Patch_Format#Patch_format_2
>>>
>>> as I saw couple nitpicks with your patch
>>> - ticket number in patch description and not in it's body
>>> - bad "From" field - I would rather expect it to be "Ludwig Krispenz
>>> <lkrispen at redhat.com>" than "lkrispen <lkrispen at redhat.com>"
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>> Hello, any update on this front? Are you or Nathaniel updating the patch?
> Attached.