[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 319, 324-335 CA management and renewal fixes

Tue Sep 30 08:20:42 UTC 2014

On 09/30/2014 10:19 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> Dne 30.9.2014 v 10:09 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
>> On 09/30/2014 09:59 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Dne 29.9.2014 v 18:09 Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
>>>> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>> Dne 29.9.2014 v 15:05 Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
>>>>>> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>> Dne 26.9.2014 v 17:13 Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
>>>>>>>> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dne 23.9.2014 v 20:39 Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
>>>>>>>>>> Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the attached patches fix various bugs and shortcomings in the CA
>>>>>>>>>>> management and renewal code. Related tickets:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4416>,
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4460>.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Patch 319 was originally posted at
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2014-September/msg00132.html>.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only two of the patches includes what ticket(s) they address. Most
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the tersest of commit messages. If got more and more difficult to see
>>>>>>>>>> why the changes were needed at all, as you'll see.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, fixed (hopefully).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that most of these patches fix stuff I didn't have time to fix
>>>>>>>>> before I posted the original CA management patches, hence the missing
>>>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, the policy is that every commit should have a ticket. So I guess
>>>>>>>> re-open the old tickets or open new ones. This will help someone in the
>>>>>>>> future know the "why" of a patch. I've certainly been guilty
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I will reopen the related tickets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is a new set of reviews as trying to intermingle was making my
>>>>>>>> eyes
>>>>>>>> cross:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 319:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess I still don't understand why you can't pull the certs out of
>>>>>>>> LDAP when creating this database. When this code runs, we know that the
>>>>>>>> client is configured, so we have access to authentication. Why can't
>>>>>>>> create_ipa_nssdb pull the certs directly? It seems more robust to me,
>>>>>>>> and the code is already written in ipa-client-install to do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I don't understand why do you want them to be updated so much, as
>>>>>>> nothing will break if they are not. Also try to imagine what would
>>>>>>> happen if, say, 10k clients were updated at the same moment...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the point of a database missing certificates?
>>>>>
>>>>> It won't be missing any certificates if /etc/pki/nssdb was not missing
>>>>> any certificates before the update.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the update will not break anything. It will not fix anything
>>>>> either, but I don't think this kind of fixing should be done during
>>>>> client RPM upgrade. It is not consistent with anything else we do during
>>>>> client RPM upgrade, it does not scale well and it just does not feel
>>>>> right to me in overall.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'll concede the point that there is no difference post-update, but
>>>> it doesn't do what ipa-certupdate does. You can potentially end up with
>>>> a completely diffferent set of certificates. So why the difference?
>>>
>>> If you end up with a *completely* different set of certificates, it's because
>>> the admins screwed up, so it's theirs responsibility to fix it, not ours IMHO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Post install of new client bits:
>>>>
>>>> # certutil -L -d /etc/ipa/nssdb/
>>>>
>>>> IPA CA                                                       CT,C,C
>>>>
>>>> After running ipa-certupdate:
>>>>
>>>> # certutil -L -d /etc/ipa/nssdb/
>>>>
>>>> CN=Primary CA,O=example.com,C=US                             ,,
>>>> CN=Secondary CA,O=example.com,C=US                           ,,
>>>> GREYOAK.COM IPA CA                                           CT,C,C
>>>>
>>>> Quite the difference.
>>>
>>> Not much of a difference when you realize that "IPA CA" and "GREYOAK.COM IPA
>>> CA" are the same certificate and the rest are there just for completeness.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll ACK for now since this doesn't materially change anything and
>>>> shouldn't break any installs but it begs the question of why it is
>>>> acceptable now but not acceptable to make ipa-certupdate do the same.
>>>
>>> I have changed the NSS database used by the RPC code from /etc/pki/nssdb to
>>> /etc/ipa/nssdb. What the RPM update does is a necessary configuration update to
>>> keep RPC working. ipa-certupdate on the other hand fetches new policy from the
>>> server, which is quite a different thing IMO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ACK for 319, 324-331, 340.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The LDAP update happens in renew_ca_cert. Are there any relevant errors
>>>>> in /var/log/messages? Is there caRenewalMaster in ipaConfigString of the
>>>>> master entry of the master where you run ipa-cacert-manage renew?
>>>>
>>>> Sep 25 16:06:44 grindle renew_ca_cert: Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>     File "/usr/lib64/ipa/certmonger/renew_ca_cert", line 214, in <module>
>>>>       main()
>>>>     File "/usr/lib64/ipa/certmonger/renew_ca_cert", line 79, in main
>>>>       ca = cainstance.CAInstance(host_name=api.env.host, ldapi=False)
>>>>     File
>>>> "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ipaserver/install/cainstance.py", line
>>>> 357, in __init__
>>>>       self.ra_agent_pwd = self.ra_agent_db + "/pwdfile.txt"
>>>> TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'NoneType' and 'str'
>>>> Sep 25 16:06:44 grindle certmonger: Certificate named "caSigningCert
>>>> cert-pki-ca" in token "NSS Certificate DB" in database
>>>> "/etc/pki/pki-tomcat/alias" issued by CA and saved.
>>>
>>> One of the KRA patches broke this. I assumed you'd be testing on top of
>>> ipa-4-1, so I didn't fix it, sorry. See the attached patch 342 for a fix.
>>> Martin, can you please review it?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>>
>>>
>>> The patches needed a rebase, attached.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks to both for this work! I pushed all patches that Rob reviewer to master
>> and ipa-4-1.
>>
>> I also checked Jan's fix up patch 342 and it looks good to me as well.
>>
>> ACK for that and pushed to master.
>>
>> Martin
>>
> 
> I did a lousy job at rebasing the patches, sorry. The attached patch fixes it.

Ah, thanks, it fixes the issue, lint passes (/me wishes he did lint before
pushing).

ACK. Pushed to master, ipa-4-1.

Martin