On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 03:38:48PM +0000, Winberg Adam wrote:
> Does sssd use the local cache to decide if the correct certificate is used 
> for unlocking a gnome session? And if so, will clearing that cache make it 
> impossible to unlock the session?

Hi,

SSSD uses the same mechanism established by pam_pkcs11 and gdm where an
environment variable KCS11_LOGIN_TOKEN_NAME is used to store the token
name of the Smartcard used during login. To unlock the session a
Smartcard with the same token name is needed together with all the other
checks.

Feel free to send my the SSSD logs with 'debug_level = 9' in the [pam]
and [domain/...] section covering the unlocking attempts.

bye,
Sumit

> 
> Trying to figure out why I still can't unlock even though i reverted to the 
> pkcs11 lib used to login to my session. I did do a 'sssctl cache-remove' 
> while debugging.
> 
> //Adam
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of 
> Winberg Adam <[email protected]>
> Sent: 22 February 2021 16:21:18
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: session unlock with smartcard stops working when 
> updating shared library
> 
> 
> Yes, good idea - removed the new lib and installed the old one, but still 
> unable to unlock my session.
> 
> 
> The token name and key id are exactly the same between the two versions in 
> the debug logs. There is however a slight difference in the uri's - one 
> version contains
> 
> library-version=68.0
> 
> and the other has
> 
> library-version=6.8
> 
> 
> Could that be the problem?
> 
> 
> //Adam
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Sumit Bose <[email protected]>
> Sent: 22 February 2021 14:38
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [SSSD-users] Re: session unlock with smartcard stops working when 
> updating shared library
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 07:17:34AM +0000, Winberg Adam wrote:
> > We're using a third party shared library for communication with our 
> > smartcards, using RHEL 8.3. SSSD uses p11 to communicate with the cards, 
> > this works fine.
> >
> >
> > But, when I update the third party lib file to a new version, I can no 
> > longer unlock my Gnome session with the smart card. Debug logs shows the 
> > following in p11_child.log:
> >
> >
> > (2021-02-22  7:55:07): [p11_child[3059726]] [main] (0x0010): --module_name, 
> > --token_name and --key_id must be given for authentication
> > (2021-02-22  7:55:07): [p11_child[3059726]] [main] (0x0020): p11_child 
> > failed!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the names and key id is read from the card in the pre-auth step and are
> then used during authentication to make sure the right certificate is
> selected. My first guess would be the either the token name or the key
> id are not returned by the new library or return in some unexpected
> format.
> 
> Can you compare the debug output of the pre-auth step of the old and new
> library?
> 
> bye,
> Sumit
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > And in sssd_pam.log:
> >
> > (2021-02-22  7:55:07): [pam] [parse_p11_child_response] (0x1000): No 
> > certificate found.
> > (2021-02-22  7:55:07): [pam] [pam_forwarder_cert_cb] (0x0020): No 
> > certificate returned, authentication failed.
> >
> > I can use the smartcard for other actions, like sudo and logging in to a 
> > new session, but not to unlock the existing session. It's like some session 
> > specific data no longer is available or no longer matches when the lib file 
> > has changed on disk.
> >
> >
> > This makes it really hard to update the lib file on our users computers, 
> > seeing as doing so will effectively lock them out of their sessions. Does 
> > anyone recognize this behaviour and is there anything I can do to avoid it?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Adam Winberg
> >
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives: 
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Reply via email to