On 04/23/2014 07:23 PM, Stephen Benjamin wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitri Pal" <d...@redhat.com>
To: "Stephen Benjamin" <stben...@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:28:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Freeipa-users] FreeIPA + Foreman 1.5
- Is it using IPA smart proxy and if not when and how it will? We would
probably need to add the instruction on how to set it up instead of the
native one. I suspect there are some differences and the reason why one
would be used over another.
It is using a provider built-in to the Foreman Smart Proxy. However, Rob
and I collaborated to ensure the APIs are compatible. You should be able
to swap out the Foreman proxy for the FreeIPA proxy when it's released.
I know, I am sort of asking for documentation and comparison so that
people would know which one we prefer them to use and why.
Ok, is there an idea of when the proxy will be released in FreeIPA?
4.0? Or earlier? When it happens, I'll link to it in the Foreman
I hope it will be available quite soon. 4.0 time frame seems like
reasonable time frame.
Having the proxy in your repos, and very easily configured is
brilliant, it makes the user experience so much better. We do need to
make sure it gets SSL authentication enabled. But over time, I expect
Foreman's proxy to be deprecated and most people to use FreeIPA's, but
we do need ours for older versions.
- I think the setup script should probably be a part of IPA smart proxy
project rather than a part of Foreman. IMO it is in the boat as mart
proxy as it links IPA and Foreman together. What do you think? May be
there should be spacial repo in IPA. As we move forward we would need to
have more and more simple scripts to setup specific integration aspects
with different projects. This is just the first one of them so we need
to define what we want to do with the next one when it emerges.
The setup script in the video is just creating some permissions we
need, it's here:
I would kind of like to see this added to FreeIPA as a role, or somehow
distributed with the FreeIPA proxy package.
I opened an issue about this a while back:
Yes we have it in the right bucket so this is coming.
The question is more about where it really belongs and in what shape of
Should be an out of box setup so that once you install IPA it is already
ready for Foreman integration? Should it be a script that is run on the
server? Than can be something like:
command with arguments:
--foreman - would load everything needed for foreman
--OpenStack - would load everything needed for OpenStack
--foo - will handle foo
The alternative is to have a script with proxy in the proxy package.
That would work too.
I just do not knwo what approach is best thus asking the question.
Whatever fits with FreeIPA way of doing things...I think just the most
important thing is it's relatively easy to setup.
I do not know. This is a question to the rest of the list.
- You have FreeIPA there as a realm type. Would it be possible to change
this string because in RHEL it is called "Identity Management"?
"FreeIPA" is used pretty much everywhere, like config files. Just the UI
wouldn't be a big issue to alter, if you want to change it for Satellite.
Yes that would be the case, I think.
- Does this support a case when the machine needs to be re-provisioned?
Does it do the right cleanup?
Yup, it disables the host if enrolled, and then requests a new OTP during
If you update the host group in Foreman, we also send that as a userclass
attribute for use with automembership, although automembership currently
works on initial creation.
- Moving forward it might make sense to be able to pass other parameters
to the realm join to pass to ipa client install. I think we need to
explore this more. For example do you want to configure SUDO or
automaint integration on the provisioned host? Do you want to generate
and upload host fingerprint, etc. Where is the right place to track this
The OTP is accessible to any provisioning template or snippet, so you
can do things however you want.
We ship some provisioning templates distributed with Foreman, which
use either 1 or 2 ways:
Fedora 20+ (and RHEL 7+):
- Built in Anaconda realm join,
I do not see a reason for realmd to be used in this case. It does not
add any value on top the ipa-client-install and actually limits the
amount of the command arguments that can be passed to the client install
script. There are two ways to overcome it: make realmd capable of
passing arguments it does not know to ipa-client install (that would be
a realmd rfe) or use ipa-client-install directly. I think direct use is
OK here because one is using IPA smart proxy and expecting the systems
to connect to IPA and not to AD.
Well, Foreman will support Active Directory via adcli, when I have
a chance to implement the smart proxy - hopefully for Foreman 1.6. Using
realmd makes it work regardless of the underlying realm type.
But you already have special differentiation between IPA and AD in the
way you pre-seed the server.
I think that realmd is more valuable for the laptop use case when it is
not know in advance which server one needs to enroll with.
As you notice below the more we drill down into what else IPA can
provide fro the system the bigger the difference would be between IPA
and AD command(s) and thus realmd would be less and less attractive for
IPA case. Using realmd for AD case is the right approch though to
simplify the setup and let realmd do all the tricks for you.
I have no horse in the race, but to me, realmd is there and it looks nice
to have it just work out of the box. It's one anaconda directive, versus
many lines of a an IPA-specific snippet.
I would prefer that the work should be done to make realmd have sensible
defaults and take some extra options for the specific provider. That's
probably not possible immediately, so I'm open to the idea of not using
it for FreeIPA.
The problem I see is that realmd most likely would not be able to keep
up with IPA capabilities and in some cases you might want to run more
then one command for IPA configuration.
At the end of the day, Foreman delivers the OTP, and users are free to
customize things however they want. I see the templates as suggestions
with just some sane defaults.
If the templates aren't sane, templates are pretty easy to contribute to:
It is a good start and we should work on making it more advanced over time.
And the more I think about it, maybe the freeipa snippet isn't
entirely sane and needs some extending (more about this below).
< Fedora 20, RHEL 6, etc:
- Kickstart snippet:
For Anaconda realm join, I don't see where you can pass additional options
to the installer. For the FreeIPA snippet, you can add a global
parameter to add arbitrary command line options to ipa-client-install.
See above. I think we should just go and do a direct call to
The snippet and provisioning can be customized however, and special
cases may want to make use of foreman_hooks:
Yes but i do not see what else is needed yet.
Potentially there we can start adding SRV records when the deployes
system is know to run a particular server.
However, I specifically predicted the sudoers question, so I
have this blog post about it:
I am not sure it is doing the right thing. In the blog you specify
bindpw for SUDO, this means you are configuring SUDO without SSSD
integration. If you use IPA it is a command switch on the
ipa-client-install command to enable sudo, ssh or automount integration
(at least in the latest versions of IPA). I think we should focus on that.
I'm very interested in this...
I wrote the ipaclient module a year ago to suit a specific need for me.
I have some consulting customers who use it, but I haven't had much
feedback about it from anyone. Suggestions for changes to how I do
things would be much appreciated.
The way ipaclient is doing things works on *everything*, from a 2-year
old release of RH IdM, to the 3.4 nightly I tested not too long ago.
Right. So this is where instead of relying on the command switches it
might make sense to run commands (if they are available).
I do not recall what the commands and switches are. This is where I need
help from Martin and Honza.
I know there is ipa-client-automount but I do not remember the names of
the similar commands for SSH, SUDO and SELinux integration.
It's used in the wild, so I can't just break the compatability there -- but,
can I use SSSD setup even on the older versions of IPA? Do you have
some info about how to get that working? If so, I'll gladly go to
I need help here. Martin?
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3358 <- but one can run command
after install to enable integration with SUDO
Honza, martin can you please add the details about SSH and SELinux
I haven't investigated automount, maybe it's something I can
consider adding to the ipaclient puppet module.
I see it more as apart of the initial client setup and check boxes: do
you want SUDO integration y/n; do you want automount y/n; do you want
SELinux user mapping y/n; Do you want SSH integration y/n. Once you
deploy you usually do not change these things because they are dictated
by general policy rather than something that you turn on and off.
Right, for this we'd need to extend the freeipa_snippet, and
use Foreman parameters for these options. I think it's a great idea,
and something I'd gladly implement. For Foreman 1.5, we've really
fixed the templates now for the release, but this is something
that could probably go into 1.5.1 if the details are hammered out.
Martin & Honza please suggest how this can be accomplished using our
I would assume we can assume we are dealing with 6.4 and later, right?
I'd really appreciate an issue opened about this.
How do older versions of IPA respond to unknown options (say, if they don't
support sudoers)? I guess I need some kind of matrix of
what's supported for each version, so that I can do the appropriate
Yes we should pass right options to the right clients but may be we can
do some kind of introspaction based on the package version.
if ipa-client package version is greater than X:
add options k, l, m
log that options k, l, m are not supported on the version
if ipa-client package version is greater than Y:
add options n, o, q, p
log that options n, o, q, p are not supported on the version
That might be a script that is run on the system rather than a part of
the template and it would check the package version available and use
only applicable options. Again here I would like to hear the opinion of
Thanks for the e-mail! I'm definitely interested in feedback.
Feature requests, PR's, etc are all welcome too :-)
We will be putting some PR do not worry!
Let us have a plan around open questions here and then I will start
reaching out and sharing the news.
Yup, great feedback, thanks!
Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.
Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.
Freeipa-users mailing list