oops, sorry -- that's already there.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah, I see -- thank you for the clarification.
>
> BTW, could 'ignore_acceptor_hostname' parameter help there?  Like adding
> the following into the krb5.conf:
>
> [libdefaults]
>   ignore_acceptor_hostname = true
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexey
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > May be, as a workaround we could run our mini_kdc only on at 127.0.0.1
>> > address.
>> >
>>
>> The issue is the actual Kudu servers, not the KDC. The KDC is on
>> 127.0.0.1,
>> but we have service principals like kudu/127.2.3.4@TESTREALM that are
>> causing the issue.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Alexey
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > FWIW it looks like there's already some code out there that can do the
>> > > appropriate "fake DNS" wrapping: https://cwrap.org/nss_wrapper.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hey folks
>> > > >
>> > > > I've been looking into why our kerberos-dependent tests are failing
>> on
>> > > el6
>> > > > and it looks like it will be unfortunately difficult to fix.
>> > > >
>> > > > The first issue was that krb5 1.10 (on el6) doesn't automatically
>> > create
>> > > > the directory for a DIR:<path> type ticket cache. That one was easy
>> to
>> > > fix
>> > > > and got minikdc-test passing.
>> > > >
>> > > > The more insidious issue, though, is the following:
>> > > > In miniclusters we start daemons on weird local IP addresses
>> > (127.x.y.z)
>> > > > which don't have any corresponding domain names. So, we have
>> configured
>> > > the
>> > > > MiniKDC to disable reverse DNS, and are creating service principals
>> > kudu/
>> > > > [email protected]. This works great on krb5-1.12.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, there's a bug in krb5 1.10 (http://krbdev.mit.edu/rt/
>> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=7603) which is preventing this from working
>> on
>> > > > el6. When 'rdns = false', Kerberos is unable to figure out which
>> realm
>> > > the
>> > > > server is in (and doesn't fall back to the default realm). So, our
>> > > > connections are failing with: "Cannot determine realm for numeric
>> host
>> > > > address".
>> > > >
>> > > > If we change to 'rdns = true', then it will first try to reverse
>> lookup
>> > > > the weird loopback, and then when it fails, still give the same
>> error
>> > > about
>> > > > numeric hosts.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's possible there's some way to explicitly set the target realm,
>> but
>> > if
>> > > > so I can't seem to find it. So, the only workarounds I can think of
>> > are:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) Use a local build of krb5 1.12 or later on el6 for test
>> purposes. I
>> > > > verified that if I built krb5 1.14 and put its libraries in
>> > > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and modified MiniKDC to use corresponding binaries,
>> > the
>> > > > tests passed fine.
>> > > >
>> > > > The downside here is that we would lose test coverage of the library
>> > > > version actually installed on a lot of end-user systems. So another
>> > > option
>> > > > might be to test against a patched version of 1.10 (with only the
>> fix
>> > for
>> > > > this numeric hostname issue).
>> > > >
>> > > > 2) Somehow monkey-patch getnameinfo() to provide reverse DNS entries
>> > for
>> > > > 127.x.y.z mapping to '127-x-y-z.kudu.local' or something of that
>> > nature.
>> > > > We'd have to do this via LD_PRELOAD probably, which is a bummer,
>> but I
>> > > > can't see any other way to override the resolver on a per-user basis
>> > > > ($HOSTALIASES only does forward DNS).
>> > > >
>> > > > Any other ideas?
>> > > >
>> > > > -Todd
>> > > > --
>> > > > Todd Lipcon
>> > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Todd Lipcon
>> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
>
>

Reply via email to