[Freeipa-devel] Final OTP Review

[Martin Kosek]

On 05/14/2013 03:53 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> 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
> 

I tested IPA server upgrades, new installs and also adding 3.2+OTP replica for
F18 3.1.4 IPA master. Everything seemed to work fine (when I added my patch 407
fixing the replication), I did not see any breakage.

Issues I found with too much logging I reported should now be fixed on github,
so this should be OK.

So it is an ACK from my side if Rob does not discover some blocking issue.

Martin