[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 333 Run index task for new indexes

[Martin Kosek]

On 11/14/2012 01:15 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 23:00 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 08:49 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 18:20 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2012 06:05 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 17:46 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>> Index task need to be run for both index updates and new indexes,
>>>>>> otherwise some current values may not be indexed and could cause
>>>>>> issues when searching LDAP (like fqdn did).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3253
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch should be the only patch in the upcoming FreeIPA 2.2.2 bug fix
>>>>>> release (unless we want to backport more patches to 2.2 line). It should fix a
>>>>>> severe issue when SSSD was no longer able to authenticate users against the
>>>>>> update 2.2.1 FreeIPA server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I specifically updated all index updates (even when the index definition is
>>>>>> already in LDAP) to make sure we fix any index that where the upgrade failed
>>>>>> previously due to this bug. FreeIPA 3.0+ packages already contains a patch
>>>>>> (2ecfe571faf9291eab7ffacea2a1e94d5be0d689) to run index task for really
>>>>>> new/updated indexes only, but I would not backport that patch due to messed
>>>>>> fqdn index in 2.2.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the patch, 2.2.0 (2.2.1) -> 2.2.2 upgrade procedure should create all
>>>>>> required indexes, including fqdn index:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # rpm -Uvh --force ~/freeipa-2-2-0/dist/rpms/freeipa-*
>>>>>> Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
>>>>>>     1:freeipa-python         ########################################### [ 17%]
>>>>>>     2:freeipa-client         ########################################### [ 33%]
>>>>>>     3:freeipa-admintools     ########################################### [ 50%]
>>>>>>     4:freeipa-server         ########################################### [ 67%]
>>>>>> ipa: INFO: /usr/share/ipa/html/krb.js exists, skipping install of Firefox extension
>>>>>>     5:freeipa-server-selinux ########################################### [ 83%]
>>>>>>     6:freeipa-debuginfo      ########################################### [100%]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # grep "Creating task to index" /var/log/ipaupgrade.log
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:06:35Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberuid
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:06:41Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberOf
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:06:47Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberHost
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:06:53Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberUser
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:06:59Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: fqdn    <<<<<<
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:07:05Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: ntUniqueId
>>>>>> 2012-11-13T16:07:11Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: ntUserDomainId
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin, does this means we run these task for every rpm upgrade
>>>>> regardless ? Or do we mark indexes as regenerated and do not repeat on
>>>>> the following rpm upgrade ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In FreeIPA 2.* we run these task for every RPM upgrade - regardless to the
>>>> update status. I fixed that behavior in FreeIPA 3.0 where we now only run the
>>>> index task when the index is really updated or added (there is more reasoning
>>>> above, but I am open to suggestions).
>>>
>>> Ah as long as it works properly in 3.0 that good enough, I do not think
>>> we'll release too many updates to 2.x anymore so it is ok as is.
>>>
>>> Simo.
>>>
>>
>> Right. My target was to have a FreeIPA 2.x with valid indexes so that we can 
>> use the new index behavior in 3.x which runs indexes only when they are changed 
>> (which would otherwise fail in this case when index object in LDAP exists but 
>> index task was not run).
>>
>> Other option would be to backport this behavior to 2.2.2 but implement routine 
>> which would check that at least one index task was run for every index object 
>> in LDAP - and if not, it would fire the missing index task. But this may be an 
>> overkill for this case.
> 
> I think it would be nice to have such a mechanism long term, as it would
> help in rare case where update may fail midway but can be restarted.
> however not needed right now, might be worth a nice to have ticket for a
> future version
> 
> Simo.
> 

Done!

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3255

Martin