Hi Nalin,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Nalin Dahyabhai <na...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
>> How can I debug this?
>
> First thing would be to run the daemon with additional logging - I
> usually use '-d3' to watch what's going on while the daemon's running
> various tasks.

wow, yes. Now you can debug ;-)

I got this sequential message until the certmonger daemon died (unly
posting a small portion):

2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1020.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_REFRESH'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs in
1481416576 seconds.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'REFRESHING'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1022.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1022.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs data is unchanged
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_ANALYZE'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs now.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'ANALYZING'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1021.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [11672] Certificate "Local Signing Authority"
valid for 31473673s.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [11672] Running result is 1481416576.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [11672] Final result is 1481416576.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1021.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_REFRESH'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs in
1481416576 seconds.
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'REFRESHING'
2014-11-11 08:34:28 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs soon.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] CA5('local').certs data is unchanged
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_ANALYZE'
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs now.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'ANALYZING'
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1022.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [11677] Certificate "Local Signing Authority"
valid for 31473668s.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [11677] Running result is 1481416576.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [11677] Final result is 1481416576.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs on traffic from 1022.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_REFRESH'
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs in
1481416576 seconds.
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'REFRESHING'
2014-11-11 08:34:33 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs soon.
2014-11-11 08:34:38 [8610] CA5('local').certs data is unchanged
2014-11-11 08:34:38 [8610] CA5('local').certs moved to state 'NEED_TO_ANALYZE'
2014-11-11 08:34:38 [8610] Will revisit CA5('local').certs now.
Killed

> The data logged with the Decoding Error looks like a certificate that's
> been base64-encoded, and then base64-encoded again, which is very odd,
> since that error message is logged in cases where it fails to parse a
> root certificate that it has just retrieved from the CA, and that data
> shouldn't have been mangled like that.
>
> Can you check the contents of the "caCertificate" attribute in the
> "cn=cacert,cn=ipa,cn=etc" entry under the IPA base DN in the directory
> server, and perhaps provide them?  They can be retrieved using a command
> like:
>    ldapsearch -b cn=cacert,cn=ipa,cn=etc,$SUFFIX -s base -Y GSSAPI 
> caCertificate
>
> The attribute values are supposed to be certificates in binary form,
> which ldapsearch will likely base64-encode for display -- ldapsearch
> will indicate that it's doing this by separating the attribute name from
> the value using two colons ('::') instead of the usual one (':') in its
> output, in accordance with ldif(5).

using the apache directory studio I see in the attr
cacertificate;binary: invalid certificate (1240 bytes).

Using your command I get:

$ ldapsearch -b cn=cacert,cn=ipa,cn=etc,dc=domain,dc=tld -Y GSSAPI
caCertificate -h kdc01.domain.tld
SASL/GSSAPI authentication started
SASL username: user.ad...@domain.tld
SASL SSF: 56
SASL data security layer installed.
# extended LDIF
#
# LDAPv3
# base <cn=cacert,cn=ipa,cn=etc,dc=domain,dc=tld> with scope subtree
# filter: (objectclass=*)
# requesting: caCertificate
#

# CACert, ipa, etc, domain.tld
dn: cn=CACert,cn=ipa,cn=etc,dc=domain,dc=tld
cACertificate;binary:: TUlJRG5EQ0NBb1NnQXdJQkFnSUJBVEFOQmdrcWhraUc5dzBCQVFzRkF
 EQTdNUmt3RndZRFZRUUtFeEJWVGtsWUxrbFNTVk5hVDFKSExrNU1NUjR3SEFZRFZRUURFeFZEWlhK
 MGFXWnBZMkYwWlNCQmRYUm9iM0pwZEhrd0hoY05NVEl4TVRBM01qRXlOREUxV2hjTk1qQXhNVEEzT
 WpFeU5ERTFXakE3TVJrd0Z3WURWUVFLRXhCVlRrbFlMa2xTU1ZOYVQxSkhMazVNTVI0d0hBWURWUV
 FERXhWRFpYSjBhV1pwWTJGMFpTQkJkWFJvYjNKcGRIa3dnZ0VpTUEwR0NTcUdTSWIzRFFFQkFRVUF
 BNElCRHdBd2dnRUtBb0lCQVFDeTJXVnk3UWtIaXVFTlcvemtNZUQ0SUxvcU9ydXVZS3ZiMitycWV1
 STlpdyt6QkJ0NTY5WFN4cmdjeWVUcTBHNjNSamJYZ3JBem90NEVoWWc2TW9lcERWQ24wQm51clVmZ
 2JDZjVSMEVib2lnamJvaDVNR25QeWxIZWZMUkdBUk5VQ3djVEdBNHVSOVpRTC9yRVVxV2t0bVpqYW
 5ZRXZPUDhVQmV1cTVXUDVlbWFYOFUwM1N6TUErY1FUOXcvengwZUFPWWdaVzV5eDNhQTVRNEZ1OHF
 XcU1HR0FPQTZ5RFFXcW1JcGd4aUZISFJhN2hRSzRBamVIZ3ZhQ29sYVU5NzlMaDVqQXYvWHdyWXRv
 azFHK1VWRXA0NUlOcGZ4cjVkTGUwM29nblBGUFowL3h3YkJxdHQvMnFuNnJrNEw0dWtINFA5ZzRSd
 zBvN1UxeUpWeC9TT0pBZ01CQUFHamdhb3dnYWN3SHdZRFZSMGpCQmd3Rm9BVW81ZmtpaTY0eno3cU
 0vSzhrOVlqM3FtRU5tZ3dEd1lEVlIwVEFRSC9CQVV3QXdFQi96QU9CZ05WSFE4QkFmOEVCQU1DQWN
 Zd0hRWURWUjBPQkJZRUZLT1g1SW91dU04KzZqUHl2SlBXSTk2cGhEWm9NRVFHQ0NzR0FRVUZCd0VC
 QkRnd05qQTBCZ2dyQmdFRkJRY3dBWVlvYUhSMGNEb3ZMMnRrWXpBeExuVnVhWGd1YVhKcGMzcHZjb
 WN1Ym13Nk9EQXZZMkV2YjJOemNEQU5CZ2txaGtpRzl3MEJBUXNGQUFPQ0FRRUFKMjhnZG96ZC9wdE
 9NNVBUS0t3eVYrb3RPL3drM3lFcnNseHBOVWhSWmdTTlV3VCt0NnRmRi9qK2pKUlY1c1grankwOWM
 5RG8rcDNIeTlnUm5JVkpPTkRTY3ZNVjluRGM3NUM2SkdYVStGZE5KSitEYnBlcC9Sc1FqSHJaK3Vu
 d0l5QVdvT3BCb2w4c0d6TjV0WGJlby9NNm1HRnhhQlRIMUdLdGd2NENLYnpRQW90dk1hR3h6S2pTY
 0hSc0dhZXJOU0NacC85MHlSSnlwQzNNT29zVUZjRmw0Q29ZSEI0MlhEVHpqdnpaUWNhRk5jZ1lYT2
 NpdWp3d1lITnpzU3FZY0lLRlNXdVd2TisrN2c0eXhRTWx1OFFXME1zL1BudG1UbU8yY0RkTkkxdHV
 qVnlCS2U1OTl5NE8vRXMvTUJHdER0VkE4NUFMa3NKT1UyN2JqdHZiQmc9PQ==

# search result
search: 4
result: 0 Success

So there is something wrong but how come I only see this in this
client after upgrading it to centos 6.6?

Thanks for your assistance.

Regards,
-- 
--
Groeten,
natxo

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
Go To http://freeipa.org for more info on the project

Reply via email to