On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:12:40AM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 9.6.2016 08:44, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 01:21:29AM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:00:36PM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> > > > On 8.6.2016 05:15, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:42:22PM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:51:04PM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi team,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patchset implements the 'ca' plugin for creating and managing
> > > > > > > lightweight sub-CAs, and updates the 'caacl' plugin and
> > > > > > > 'cert-request' command to support multiple CAs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A brief overview of the patches:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0059
> > > > > > > 'ca' plugin, associated schema changes and container objects,
> > > > > > > Dogtag REST API wrapper
> > > > > > > 0060
> > > > > > > Add CA entry for the IPA CA on install/upgrade
> > > > > > > 0061
> > > > > > > Update 'caacl' plugin with CA support (including enforcement)
> > > > > > > 0062
> > > > > > > Update ra.request_certificate() to support specifying target CA
> > > > > > > 0063
> > > > > > > Add '--ca' option to 'cert-request' command
> > > > > > > 0064
> > > > > > > Add '--issuer' option to 'cert-find' command
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These patches depend on other pending patches:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0051, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signing key replication depends on unmerged Dogtag patches.
> > > > > > > Builds
> > > > > > > of Dogtag with the required patches, and of FreeIPA with all
> > > > > > > completed sub-CAs work, should be available from my COPR soon:
> > > > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ftweedal/freeipa/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some parts of the design are not implemented in the current
> > > > > > > patchset, including:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - local parent CA (ipaca object) references
> > > > > > > - sub-CA certificate renewal
> > > > > > > - 'cert-show' command '--ca=NAME' option
> > > > > > > - certmonger support for specifying CA
> > > > > > > - revocation of deleted CAs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I look forward to your reviews!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Fraser
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Rebased and updated patches attached.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Substantive changes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - add required attributes for issuer DN and subject DN
> > > > > > - prevent rename of IPA CA
> > > > > > - when adding IPA CA entry, contact Dogtag to learn authority id,
> > > > > > issuer DN and subject DN
> > > > > > - add 'read_ca' method to Dogtag interface
> > > > > > - tighten ACIs to prevent modification of ipacaid attribute
> > > > > >
> > > > > Updated patch 0064-3; adds --issuer option to cert-show and --ca
> > > > > option to cert-show and cert-find.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0059:
> > > >
> > > > 1) On upgrade, why is the lightweight CA container created twice - once
> > > > in
> > > > 41-subca.update, once using ensure_entry() call? It should be done only
> > > > once.
> > > >
> > > I'll remove 41-subca.update; the routine in cainstance is the one
> > > that's needed.
> > >
> > > > 2) In ca_del, every CA specified in args[0] should be deleted, not just
> > > > the
> > > > first one.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Do not use NonFatalError, issue a warning instead:
> > > >
> > > > self.add_message(MyNewWarningClass(name=...))
> > > >
> > > > 4) Can it actually happen that ca_show does not return ipacaid? I guess
> > > > not,
> > > > so you should be able to remove the check altogether and don't bother
> > > > with
> > > > the warning.
> > > >
> > > ipacaid is mandatory now, so I'll remove the check.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0060-0062: LGTM
> > > >
> > > Yippee \o/
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0063:
> > > >
> > > > Could you please define the CA param as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Str('cacn?',
> > > > cli_name='ca',
> > > > query=True,
> > > > label=_("CA"),
> > > > doc=_("CA to use"),
> > > > ),
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > This is for consitency with framework-generated parent key params, which
> > > > unfortunately we cannot leverage in cert_request currently.
> > > >
> > > No problemo.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Patch 0064:
> > > >
> > > > 1) See my comment for patch 0063, it applies here as well.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The --issuer option should not be included in cert_show - show
> > > > commands
> > > > are supposed to retrieve an object given primary key(s), and the
> > > > primary key
> > > > of CA objects is just their cn.
> > > >
> > > The --issuer argument is because primary key for a cert is really
> > > (issuer, serial). So it show the cert _with_ that issuer (and
> > > serial), not the cert _for_ that issuer.
>
> Correct, but in IPA the issuer is represented by the CA object, so in IPA
> the primary key for a certificate is actually (CA name, serial).
>
> Certificate lookup by issuer name and serial is actually a search operation,
> analogical to how CA lookup by subject name is also a search operation, so
> it should be done by cert-find.
>
OK, I will remove the --issuer option for cert-find.
> > >
> > > > 3) In find commands, the options form a filter, so instead of raising
> > > > MutuallyExclusiveError in cert-find, return an empty result, as with any
> > > > other unmatched filter.
> > > >
> > > Here, --issuer and --ca are two different ways to specify the
> > > issuer. --issuer lets you give the issuer DN straight up; --ca
> > > takes the name of an IPA CA object and looks up its issuer DN.
> > > (Thus it makes no sense to give both options at once).
>
> That's one way to look at it, but it's true only if you assume that
> cert-find can only search certificates in Dogtag. This will very soon became
> untrue, as we will allow cert-find to also search certificates anywhere in
> LDAP (the server part of ticket #5381). There, the difference between the
> options would be that with --ca you search for certificates issued by the
> specified managed CA, but with --issuer you search for certificates with the
> given issuer name, be it managed CA or not.
>
--ca is just a "shorthand" for --issuer - it merely looks up subject
DN of the specified CA, and uses that as the issuer option.
> For now, IMO the correct behavior should be that if both are specified and
> the issuer name of the specified CA does not match the specified issuer
> name, empty result is returned, otherwise carry on with the search in
> Dogtag.
>
If I allow both, the behaviour will then be:
specify issuer DN only)
search using given issuer DN
specify CA only)
search using subject DN of specified CA. If no such CA, error.
specify issuer DN and CA)
search using given issuer DN, and ensure that result (if any)
matches subject DN of specified CA. If no such CA, error.
I'm happy to implement this if you confirm that you think it's the
correct behaviour.
Thanks,
Fraser
--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
