[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] Re: Changes to use a single database for dogtag and IPA

Wed Nov 21 09:48:32 UTC 2012

On 11/21/2012 10:46 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 02:59 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 03:14 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2012 02:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/2012 02:25 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>> On 11/16/2012 11:23 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/15/2012 07:17 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2012 05:09 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2012 03:19 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Recently, the specfile changed (dce53e4) and the patch for
>>>>>>>>> changed Dogtag
>>>>>>>>> defaults made it to master independently (91e477b). Attaching
>>>>>>>>> rebased patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that to continue development on f17, you will need to use the
>>>>>>>>> dogtag-devel
>>>>>>>>> repo:
>>>>>>>>>     sudo yum-config-manager
>>>>>>>>> --add-repo=http://nkinder.fedorapeople.org/dogtag-devel/dogtag-devel-fedora.repo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 03:57 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For convenience, I've also pushed the changes to a personal
>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>> To fetch to branch "pviktori-dogtag-10" you can do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        git fetch -f git://github.com/encukou/freeipa.git
>>>>>>>>>> dogtag-10:pviktori-dogtag-10
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started reviewing the patches, and found the first thing that looks
>>>>>>>> suspicious. I had IPA with 2 databases, then upgraded it to
>>>>>>>> single-database
>>>>>>>> IPA, the upgrade was OK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But when I uninstalled the IPA, PKI-IPA dirsrv instance was not
>>>>>>>> removed
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> when I installed single-db IPA afterwards, I had 2 dirsrv
>>>>>>>> instances running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're right. This is an uninstaller error already present in 2.2:
>>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3258
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start looking into it tomorrow, if nothing more important
>>>>>>> shows up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. But this is definitely not a show stopper,
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> additional DS instance seems more or less benign and as you pointed
>>>>>> out, it is
>>>>>> rather an old bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are bigger issues. Now I focused on ipa-replica-manage and
>>>>>> ipa-csreplica-manage tools. ipa-replica-manage gets confused with the
>>>>>> additional replication agreements in IPA dirsrv instance (although
>>>>>> targeted to
>>>>>> nsDS5ReplicaRoot: o=ipaca).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First scenario: 3 IPA servers with CA in this topology:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B - A - C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On A:
>>>>>> # ipa-replica-manage list `hostname`
>>>>>> vm-055.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>>> vm-070.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>>> vm-055.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>>> vm-070.idm.lab.bos.redhat.com: replica
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it should not display agreements that are for IPA only, not IPA CA
>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, when I try to connect B to C, ipa-replica-manage succeeded:
>>>>>> [B] # ipa-replica-manage connect C
>>>>>> Connected 'B' to 'C'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This changed the topology to:
>>>>>>       A
>>>>>>     /   \
>>>>>> B   -  C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But ipa-csreplica-manage connect did not succeed then:
>>>>>> [B] # ipa-csreplica-manage connect C
>>>>>> Directory Manager password:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This replication agreement already exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Del command also failed for me:
>>>>>> [A] ipa-replica-manage del [C]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still trying to investigate why. If I manage to get some workable
>>>>>> fix during my
>>>>>> investigations, I will attach it later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix for that for easier than expected. Attached patch restored
>>>>> the previous
>>>>> functionality for ipa-(cs)replica-manage. I tried that with all basic
>>>>> commands
>>>>> - add, del, connect, disconnect and it worked fine so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this was a case with all D10 masters, I will need to try if that
>>>>> flies with
>>>>> D9->D10 replicas or upgraded D9 masters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I managed to create a 2.2 (F17) -> 3.1 (F18) replica, everything seem
>>>> to work
>>>> well. I just think we will need to also backport the previous patch at
>>>> least to
>>>> 3.0 and 2.2 versions to fix errors with ipa-replica-manage replication
>>>> management tool. I created a ticket for this purpose:
>>>>
>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3262
>>>>
>>>> Attaching a patch for IPA 2.2 branch in case somebody is also testing
>>>> it. With
>>>> this patch, I was able to list, force-sync, re-initialize, connect,
>>>> disconnect
>>>> from 2.2 to 3.1 replica without any errors.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> I checked ipa-csreplica-install, and found some more problems.
>>>
>>> In the "connect" and "disconnect" subcommands we now assume both masters
>>> use port 389 for the PKI DS. While the number is relatively easily
>>> parametrized, the assumption that both sides use the same port seems to
>>> run pretty deep.
>>> I'm working on a patch to detect if the remote server has merged DBs and
>>> use the appropriate port.
>>
>> Attaching patches to do this.
>> Patch 0100 adds an argument to IPAdmin to overrides guessing of the protocol to
>> use.
>> Patch 0101 modifies ipa-csreplica-manage to figure out the ports of the DSs
>> involved and use those.
>>
>> Note that this touches code shared with ipa-replica-manage, please re-test that
>> as well.
>>
> 
> Works fine, I was able to create a network of few IPA 2.2 replicas and IPA 3.1
> replicas and use ipa-replica-manage and ipa-csreplica-manage to play with the
> agreements. No regression discovered so far.
> 
> I just see that in patch 101 you touch setup_replication and force TLS as a
> default. But in this case, r_sslport parameter is never used and we can remove it.
> 
> In 101, you also set LDAP+TLS as default connection protocol with
> +        super(CSReplicationManager, self).__init__(
> +            realm, hostname, dirman_passwd, port, starttls=True)
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Wouldn't we want to make LDAP+TLS as a default also in a bunch of
> ReplicationManager initializations in ipa-replica-manage? Otherwise, we use
> ldaps/SSL by default. AFAIU, LDAP+TLS is preferred over ldaps/SSL so this would
> be a good step to do. Adding Rob and Simo to CC to correct me if I miss
> anything and we want to keep using ldaps/SSL by default.
... adding to CC now!

Martin