Ok..even though I still stand by what I said below (and want to get some
feedback on this), I figured, it surely wouldn't hurt to allow the
<security-realm-name> be an override for the appName of the Tomcat
JAASRealm. If its not specified, it will default to the standard
methodology of how Tomcat looks for a realm (by name of the path/context
or Host or Engine depending upon where the Realm was declared). One
caveat...if you want the Realm to use the context's
<security-realm-name>, you must have a RealmGBean applied at the context
level in the geronimo-web.xml. If you do not...you will get the
following log:
WARN: security-realm-name was specified but no RealmGBean was configured
for this context. Ignoring security-realm-name.
and it will thus default to the Tomcat standard realm naming conventions
(i.e. the inherited Host or Engine name at which the Realm was supplied
- Engine by default).
So...its coded, unit tested, and checked in.
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
Correct, Tomcat does not use the <security-realm-name> element from the
geronimo-web.xml.
How it works is...
The Tomcat realms take the name of the object it is associated with.
Tomcat objects inherit Realms from top down. If a Realm is associated
with an Engine, then the Host(s) and Context(s) inherit that realm. The
same goes for Hosts...if its associated with that host, then all
Contexts under that Host inherits the Realm. Here is the example...
There is typically a geronimo realm GBean that is created...lets use the
example of the one in the tomcat-config.xml. Notice the realmName
attribute is "Geronimo".
Then a TomcatRealm is attached either the Engine, Host, or Context
levels. In this instance we have the TomcatRealm attached to the server
(i.e. the Engine) Notice the Engine object in tomcat-config.xml has a
name parameter of "Geronimo". All Contexts under that Engine will
associate itself with the "Geronimo" realm name. So this is Server-wide.
If I wish to change a Context to specifically use its own specific
realm, its name is the context root/path name. So say I have created an
application that has a context root of "testme", then I can attach a
Realm object to it, and this Realm object will expect to find a realm
called "testme".
This is how standard tomcat realms work, and it is because normally,
J2EE/JAAS uses a login.config file, where we declare our realms with
login modules like this:
<name used by application to refer to this entry> {
<LoginModule> <flag> <LoginModule options>;
<optional additional LoginModules, flags and options>;
};
(See http://tinyurl.com/dz6bz for more info)
In Geronimo, since we don't use a login.config, instead, we wire these
up via 2 GBeans...a realm and a loginmodule. The application name
really becomes the realm name in our world. So to keep in line with the
login.config configuration, we use the realmName of the
GenericSecurityRealm matched up with the application name (or path of
our Context).
It would not be too difficult to use the <security-realm-name> as an
override at this point, but Tomcat has stated that setName() on the
Realms is deprecated and thus will disappear in the future. This does
not preclude us rewriting the Realms, but it would break compatibility
with the slew of Realm objects offered by Tomcat in the future.
I would suggest we examine why we use <security-realm-name> and why not
follow the application name paradigm that appears to be a standard.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
So in web apps, the developer provides a list of roles in web.xml,
and then we let you map any principals from any Geronimo security realms
to the J2EE roles using the <security> element in geronimo-web.xml
(it's quite possible to allow principals from multiple realms).
However, on top of that, there's a <security-realm-name> element
in geronimo-web.xml, which appears to be used by Jetty and not
Tomcat. This appears to be used to set the JettyJAASRealm on the
JettyWebAppContext (see JettyWebAppContext.java:257).
I'm assuming that when you log in to Jetty, it authenticates you
against the security realm named in the <security-realm-name> element,
and then authorizes you against the mappings performed in the
<security> element. So logically, it wouldn't help you to include
principals from any other realm in the <security> element, but we
don't enforce that in the schemas.
If that's true, then what realm does Tomcat authenticate against?
And what realm do EJBs authenticate against? Both Tomcat and EJBs appear
to only use the <security> element (Tomcat ignores the
<security-realm-name> element AFAICT and openejb-jar.xml doesn't have
one).
Thanks,
Aaron
