On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:26:22AM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote: > Hi, > > On 4.7.2016 09:06, Fraser Tweedale wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:47:23PM -0000, freeipa wrote: > > > #6002: Default CA can be used without an ACL > > > > > > Comment (by ftweedal): > > > > > > This is expected behaviour; if a CA ACL does not reference any CAs, > > > and does not have cacat=all, then it is assumed to refer to the > > > default CA. This is for backwards compatibility with existing > > > CA ACLs, which do not reference any CAs but did (and still do) > > > allow access to IPA CA. > > > > > > Leaving open for discussion about whether to break compatibility > > > for a more consistent behaviour. > > > > > Didn't get any feedback in the ticket yet so raising on list for > > visibility. If people agree with current behaviour I can add a > > clarification to caacl plugin help text and close out this ticket. > > (Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation the last 2 weeks.) > > I would very much prefer if this was consistent with (literally) every other > member list+category attribute, that is, no member and no category means the > rule never matches. > > While documenting this as an exception to the above rule is the easy way > out, IMHO adhering to the rule is even better - anyone who touched HBAC or > sudo in IPA would immediately know their way around CA ACLs without having > to read the documentation at all, which is a win, because people don't > generally read documentation until something goes wrong. The current > behavior might surprise them, even if documented properly (it sure surprised > me at first :-). > > BTW I think this can be done without breaking compatibility, e.g. by using a > new objectclass to distinguish between "old" (CA is always implicitly the > top-level CA) and "new" (CAs are specified using the member and category > attributes) CA ACLs. > > Honza > Is there precedent of "varying behaviour based on objectclass" in IPA?
Would it go along the lines of... 1. subtype 'ipaCaAcl' object class (let us call it 'ipaCaAclWithCa' for sake of discussion). (Note that moving the 'ipaCa' attribute to be part of 'ipaCaAclWithCa' would not be backwards compatible with v4.4 as currently released, so it would remain in 'ipaCaAcl' objectclass.) 2. Upgrade script to take 'ipaCaAcl' objects that are NOT 'ipaCaAclWithCa', and make them so, while adding the IPA CA. Is this what you have in mind? If so, I don't think there is actually a need to vary the behaviour based on object class, other than during upgrade. The reason I was not doing upgrades in the first place was because I could not in distinguish between "old" CA ACLs, and "new" CA ACLs that don't have any CAs defined. However, adding a new objectclass resolves this ambiguity. Lmk what you think; I could be way off track :) Cheers, 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