On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:42:29PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:26:34PM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 12:15 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:41:51AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> > From: "Sumit Bose" <sb...@redhat.com>
> >>> > To: "freeipa-devel" <freeipa-devel@redhat.com>
> >>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:41:14 AM
> >>> > Subject: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 149] IPA KDB: allow case in-sensitive 
realm      in AS request
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > this patch is my suggestion to solve
> >>> > https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4844 .
> >>> >
> >>> > The original issue in the ticket has two part. One is a loop in libkrb5
> >>> > which is already fixed. The other is to handle canonicalization better.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry Sumit,
> >>> I see several issues with this patck.
> >>>
> >>> first of all you should really not change ipadb_get_principal(), that's 
> >>> wrong place to apply your logic.
> >>>
> >>> To support searching for the realm name case-insensitively all we should 
> >>> is to always forcibly upper case the realm name at the same time we build 
> >>> filter (in ipadb_fetch_principals(), if canonicalization was requested.
> >>> Because we will never store (code to prevent that should probably be dded 
> >>> this patch) a realm name that is not all caps.
> >>> Then the post search matches should be done straight within 
> >>>
> >>> > The general way to allow canonicalization on a principal is to add the
> >>> > attributes 'krbcanonicalname'[1] and 'ipakrbprincipalalias' together
> >>> > with the objectclass 'ipaKrbPrincipal' to the user object.
> >>>
> >>> We have already a ticket open since long to remove krbprincipalalias, it 
> >>> a mistake to add it and any patch that depends on it will be nacked by me.
> >>> We need to use krbPrincipalName and krbCanonicalName.
> >>>
> >>> > Then the IPA
> >>> > KDB backend will use 'ipakrbprincipalalias' for case in-sensitive
> >>> > matches and  the principal from 'krbcanonicalname' will be the canonical
> >>> > principal used further on. The 'krbPrincipalName' is not suitable for
> >>> > either because it has caseExact* matching rules and is a multivalue
> >>> > attribute [2].
> >>>
> >>> Case-exact match is a problem only if we do not canonicalize names when 
> >>> them, otherwise all you need to do is store a "search form" in 
> >>> and always change searches to that form (forcibly upper case realm, 
> >>> lowercase components) when canonicalization is requested.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally in the patch you are using stcasecmp(), that function is not
> >>> acceptable, look at ipadb_find_principal() and you'll see we use 
> >>> there.
> >>> Also modyfing the principal before searching is done wrong (you use 
> >>> to find the @ sign, but you could find an @ in the components this way, 
> >>> should use strrchr() at the very least), and is dangerous if done outside 
> >>> the inner functions because then we never have a way to know the original
> >>> form should it be needed. In any case as said above realm should be 
> >>> uppercase, given a flag in the escape function instead.
> >>
> >>Thank for for the review and the comments.
> >>
> >>I changed the patch as you suggested to upper-case the realm in the
> >>escape function if the flag is set.
> >>
> >>I didn't add any checks to make sure that the realm of newly added
> >>principal attributes is always upper case. Since the attributes can be
> >>added via various ways I think the check should happen on the DS level
> >
> >We should indeed intercept add/modify operations and see if they try to
> >set krbPrincipalName/krbCanonicalName and then validate the name.
> >Return unwilling to perform if the case of the realm is different (or
> >fix it on the fly, up for discussion) from the default case as
> >configured in the server.
> Will break trusts -- ipasam does add these principals for krbtgt/IPA@AD.
> >>but I see this more in the context of full canonicalization fix covered
> >>by https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3864 . If you think this is a
> >>requirement for the patch attached I would suggest to drop
> >>https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4844 and solve it together with
> >>#3864.
> >
> >We should clsoe 4844 as fixed upstream (there *was* a bug in libkrb5).
> >I commented on #3864 about what we can do, and we can also avoid
> >changing the schema.
> Yep.
> >So on the new patches, what does "unify" means ? I do not get what it
> >means (so probably it is a poor name), I guess you may want to call it
> >"canonicalization" ? (or even 'canon' to shorten it a bit).
> I have same question. I tried to understand why it is called unify and
> failed.

I didn't want to use 'canonical' because the result will not be the
canonical name in the general case but only a name we use for searching.
I was thinking about 'normalized' bit this has a special meaning with
unicode. So I came up with 'unify'. But if you prefer 'canon' I can
change it.

> >I think the worst case for a utf8 string is more then length*2, probably
> >more like length*6, unless there is some guarantee around case changes
> >that I am not aware of, that said we could probably just allocate on the
> >stack a fixed size string of a KiB or so, the longest DNS name is 256
> >chars IIRC and a service name can't be that much longer, also usernames
> >can't be arbitrarily long. So 1/2 KiB should probably be fine for a full
> >principal name. (avoids a malloc too which is good).
> Yes, sounds good. A hostname label can be up to 63 characters and full
> domain name including dots would be 253 characters. At the same time, a
> a component of the principal may be of arbitrary length. From practical
> perspective it would probably be enough to go with a static buffer of
> 1/2 KiB for the quickest case and fall back to malloc() if the size is
> bigger than that one.

ok, I will change this.

new version with changed name and 1/2 KiB buffer attached. No changes to
the 2nd patch.

Patches look good to me. I, perhaps, would have added char *canon_princ = NULL;

in the definition of canon_princ but as you never access it in case
asprintf() failed, that's fine.


/ Alexander Bokovoy

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to