On 02/09/15 14:19, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 02:10:52PM +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 09/01/2015 04:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 16:39 +0200, Martin Babinsky wrote:
Hi list,

I own the following ticket https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3864
and I would like to clarify what needs to be done in order to make IPA
to fully support multiple aliases per entry.

So far I have identified these task based on the ticket comments and
discussion with Simo way back in the past:

1.) mark 'ipaKrbPrincipalAlias' attribute as deprecated so that it is
not used in the new code.

2.) fix ACIs that do not permit setting multiple values of
'krbPrincipalName' attribute per entry (see

3.) Modify KDB backend (namely 'ipadb_fetch_principal' and
'ipadb_find_principal' functions) to correctly perform lookup of
krbprincipalname/krbcanonicalname, i.e. search krbprincipalname
case-insensitively and krbcanonicalname case-sensitively, return
krbcanonicalname when canonicalization is requested.

4.) Modify KDB backend and IPA framework to handle creation of both
krbprincipalname and krbcanonicalname. I am not quite sure what cases
should be covered here (I remember that we should create
krbcanonicalname when we add another aliases to krbprincipalname), so it
would be nice if you could comment on this.

5.) write tests which cover all this stuff so that we don't shoot
ourselves in the foot.

I am not very well versed in Kerberos so I might get some of this stuff
wrong. If that's the case please point me to the right direction. Also
please write me some additional stuff which I have fogot and needs to be

I think the summary is correct, the only thing we need to be careful is
to keep handling entries that have only a single valued krbprincipalname
correctly as that will happen in upgrade paths and potentially if
someone uses external tools.

The tricky part for point 3 is to implement it *without* changing the
schema. KrbPrincipalName is case-sensitive, however I think we can solve
the issue of "searching case-insensitively" by always lower-casing the
principal name components and always upper casing the realm part on
storage. If we always store a krbCanonicalName we get the "correct" case
there anyway so out mucking with the krbPrincipalName case will not be a
problem for any new entry.

This *may* cause issues with upgrades though, so we may need fallback
code that searches with the case sent by the client if we determine the
entry has no krbCanonicalName attribute (sign that it was created before
we started adding krbCanonicalName and never "updated").

Note that we also need to think what will happen during and upgrade when
some servers still use the current code and some servers will use the
new code. So I guess it would be nice if you could write down a table
with all possible forms a principal can be in on rows, and old/new
server states in columns, and mark what will happen for various
operations in each case.


The list looks OK. Do we also plan to change the default RDN for new services
or other objects that use krbPrincipalName as RDN at the moment?

AFAIU, we are supposed to always use krbCanonicalName as the primary RDN and
then only allow krbPrincipalName to be added for the aliases. Of course, the
framework needs to still work with old services having krbPrincipalName.

no, I think we can/should keep krbPrincipalName e.g. becasue krbCanonicalName
is only optional according to the scheme.

That's right. We should keep krbprincipalname as RDN as it must be there anyway. We just need to set krbprincipalname and krbcanonicalname to the same value at entry creation and use this value in RDN. Also we won't allow removing krbprincipalname with the same value as krbcanonicalname. This allows us to maintain backwards compatibility with no additional effort.



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

David Kupka

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

Reply via email to