[Freeipa-devel] Final OTP Review

[Nathaniel McCallum]

On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 16:55 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:08 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 23:39 -0700, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> > > On 05/02/2013 10:27 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> > > > All issues fixed unless noted below... The attached patches are tested
> > > > to work.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:39 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> - (nit) slapi_ch_malloc/slapi_ch_strdup are not checked for failure
> > > >> (although I know slapi_ch_malloc() currently just aborts on failure, I
> > > >> think that is plain wrong which is why I would prefer using
> > > >> malloc/strdup, but well, I guess this is not something I am going to
> > > >> care too much about for now).
> > > > Not fixed.
> > > >
> > > >> - Is the logic with auth_type_used correct ?
> > > >> At least the name of the variable sounds misleading, because you set it
> > > >> only if the authentication was successful but not set if it was 'used'
> > > >> but was unsuccessful. Made me look at it multiple times to reconstuct
> > > >> the logic. The var name could be better, however I also want a comment
> > > >> that explain exactly how we are going to manage authentication and
> > > >> fallbacks here as that logic is critical and is useful for anyone that
> > > >> is going to have to change this code later in order not to break it.
> > > > The variable is now gone. I re-factored the section to make the logic
> > > > clearer and put a nice big comment up top.
> > > >
> > > >> - General question: how does this PRE_BIND plugin interact with
> > > >> ipapwd_pre_bind() in the ipa-pwd-extop() plugin ?
> > > >> Are you going to cause that plugin not to run by returning a result
> > > >> directly in this function ?
> > > >> Or is this plugin configured to run only after the previous one went
> > > >> through ?
> > > >> I ask because I do not see any ordering information in the cn=config
> > > >> plugin configuration so it is not immediately clear to me.
> > > > That is a good question for Nathan since he wrote this part of the
> > > > code...
> > > We would need to set the precedence if you want a predictable/guaranteed 
> > > execution order.  If a pre-BIND plug-in callback returns non-zero (which 
> > > you should do when the plug-in sends the result to the client directly), 
> > > it will cause other pre-bind plug-ins to not be called.  This is 
> > > actually how all pre-op plug-ins work.  If a pre-op callback returns an 
> > > error, we don't call the rest of the pre-op plug-ins in the list.
> > 
> > Ok, but this does not answer my question.
> > We definitely need to *always* run our other preop plugin as we do
> > sanity checks like verifying if the user is enabled/disabled etc...
> > Also we need to understand how to deal with migrating password auth when
> > OTP is enabeld.
> > 
> > TBH I think we should not have a separate OTP-auth plugin but we should
> > probably have a single plugin that handles authentication and the 2
> > should be merged. Keeping them separate is going to cause more harm than
> > good with unexpected interactions.
> > 
> > We could still have 2 plugins and simply move the prebind action
> > currently don in ipa-pwd-extop to the otp plugin by making some more
> > code common. But it is probably easier to just merge OTP into
> > ipa-pwd-extop right now than try to do a huge refactoring. We can always
> > refactor the ipa-pwd-extop plugin later.
> 
> The attached patches encompass an initial review of the companion daemon
> and merge of ipa-otp into ipa-pwd-extop. Unfortunately, merging ipa-otp
> into ipa-pwd-extop appears to have broken something during install, but
> I don't have enough familiarity with 389 to understand what I've broken.
> If I upgrade after an install, it appears to work.
> 
> An RPM with the patches is available here:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5362935
> 
> Nathan / Rob / Simo, could you take a look and see what might be broken
> in ipa-pwd-extop?

While I'm not quite sure what the problem was, I do know it appeared on
the stock 3.2 F19 RPMs. I also fixed it by accident. I am certain it is
unrelated to these patches.

I have now tested install and upgrade with the six patches in the
previous email and everything is in order, including permissions. At
this point, we just need reviews/ACKs.

Nathaniel