On 10/09/2012 04:11 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 10/09/2012 03:48 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On 10/08/2012 09:29 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Crittenden" <rcrit...@redhat.com>
To: "Martin Kosek" <mko...@redhat.com>
Cc: freeipa-devel@redhat.com
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:18:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 321 Move CRL publish directory to IPA
owned directory

Martin Kosek wrote:
Currently, CRL files are being exported to /var/lib/pki-ca
sub-directory, which is then served by httpd to clients. However,
this approach has several disadvantages:
     * We depend on pki-ca directory structure and relevant
     permissions.
       If pki-ca changes directory structure or permissions on
       upgrade,
       IPA may break. This is also a root cause of the latest error,
       where
       the pki-ca directory does not have X permission for others and
       CRL
       publishing by httpd breaks.
     * Since the directory is not static and is generated during
       ipa-server-install, RPM upgrade of IPA packages report errors
       when
       defining SELinux policy for these directories.

Move CRL publish directory to /var/lib/ipa/pki-ca/publish (common
for
both dogtag 9 and 10) which is created on RPM upgrade, i.e. SELinux
policy
configuration does not report any error. The new CRL publish
directory
is used for both new IPA installs and upgrades, where contents of
the directory (CRLs) is first migrated to the new location and then
the
actual configuration change is made.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3144


-------

We may choose to postpone this patch to later version, it is quite
disruptive.
I can produce a hotfix in that case, which would only fix the
permission of the
pki-ca directory.

Martin

This looks good, just a couple of questions.

Should the old files be removed?

Yeah, this is something I wonder about too. One one side, users may be get
confused if there are 2 publish directories with the same content (a least
until a next CRL generation). But on the other side, I was cautious not to
delete something important in a case when something goes wrong. But maybe I
am just being over-cautious and we can delete it, or maybe move directory to
"publish.deleted". In a worst case scenario, CRLs should be generated again,
in about 4 hours...


Should some error handling be added around the copy to ensure it is
successful? This would blow up if the disk was full, for example.

I think this is covered, I have there a try..except clause for this case:

+        for f in crl_files:
+            try:
+                copy_crl_file(f)
+            except Exception, e:
+                root_logger.error('Cannot move CRL file to new directory:
%s', e)

Just the exception is caught on a higher level and error is reported to user.
Not sure what to do in this case - report error to user, do not change the
location and ask user to resolve the error? Or just report error and continue
with CRL publish directory change as I do currently?

Martin


Ah, I was looking at too low a level.

I think this is fine. I wonder if we should log/document somewhere in big
flashing letters that the stuff has been moved. It is rather clear in the logs
now, I suppose, if you look carefully.

I guess it isn't really that big a deal now since we just have server certs. It
would take a whole ton of revocations to grow the CRLs that quickly, so maybe
my concerns are overblown.

rob

CRL size may quickly grown for someone who rapidly adds/removes client hosts or
services as we revoke such certificates with 4 - superseded.. About the user
info - maybe we should also allow output of ipa-upgradeconfig's stderr stream
as we did with ipa-ldap-updater. This way, user would receive error message
when CRL copy operation fails.

Martin


I think the patch is fine as-is. Can you open a new ticket on a mechanism to
alert the user to upgrade things to review?

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3157


ACK

rob


Rebased and pushed to master, ipa-3-0.

Martin


The upgrade is done even on a replica without a CA.
On such a system, rpm update just silently fails.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3159

--
PetrĀ³

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to