1:14 p.m.
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:15 +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:13:33PM -0500, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
> On 7/23/2014 2:09 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27:11AM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> >>Along with LDAP profiles, we will be adding modules to the CLI for
> >>adding and editing profiles in the ConfigStore format that was used
> >>for file-based profiles. For more info, see:
> >>
> >>
http://pki.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LDAP_Profile_Storage#Command-line_utili...
> >>
> >>There is an existing CLI for adding and modifying profiles, in the
> >>XML format, e.g. ``pki ca profile add caCustomProfile.xml``. The
> >>XML format carries information including the profile ID and
> >>class_id, but these data must be supplied out-of-band when dealing
> >>with the ConfigStore format.
> >>
> >>Because of this, I intend to:
> >>
> >>- add new commands to the existing profile CLI for working with the
> >> "raw" (i.e., ConfigStore) format, e.g. "edit-raw",
"add-raw".
> >> Where necessary, these commands will take compulsory
> >> ``--profile-id`` and/or ``--class-id`` arguments, to account for
> >> the absense of such information in the profile ConfigStore format;
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >>- transport this information in the XML format - not in the "raw"
> >> format - so that it will be unnecessary to make changes to
> >> ProfileClient or the ProfileService API.
> >>
> >>As usual, I welcome feedback - especially if you feel I am going the
> >>wrong way ^_^
> >>
> >
> >An update: due to the various Profile and ProfileInput/Output/Policy
> >classes not being distributed in the pki-tools package (or
> >dependencies thereof), I /did/ end up adding methods to the REST
> >API.
> >
> >The `pki ca profile show-raw <profileId>` command is implemented in
> >the attached patch 0009. I expected I will complete the edit-raw
> >and add-raw commands tomorrow, and after that will move on to
> >testing replication and polling/monitoring for changes to profiles.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Fraser
>
> Some comments/questions:
>
Thanks for the review/feedback Endi. Responses inline.
> 1. About the the new ou=certProfiles entry, We probably should move it into
> the ou=ca subtree because that subtree already contains other CA-specific
> LDAP entries such as ou=certificateRepository.
>
This makes sense; shall do.
Lets also use the full name - ou=certificateProfiles, ou=ca, $baseDN
There are a few properties which should be specified, either as config
parameters in CS.cfg or as constants in ProfileSubsystem.java.
The DN above for example, should probably be a config parameter in
CS.cfg - something like profile.baseDN or better yet, a property of the
ProfileSubsystem CS.cfg entries.
Things like the attribute used to store the data, the createAttrs etc.
could be made constants in ProfileSubsystem.java.
> 2. Is certProfilesLastModified really necessary? Each LDAP entry
already has
> a modifyTimestamp attributes. To be accurate, the certProfilesLastModified
> has to be updated whenever the profiles are imported or updated. There seems
> to be no code for that yet, and there's no guarantee it won't get out of
> sync (e.g. server crash, direct LDAP modification).
>
This attribute is intended for use by the mechanism that
monitors/polls LDAP for changes and reloads profiles as necessary.
There is no code for it yet; if I don't end up using it I will
remove it.
Yeah - I think we should use modifyTimeStamp attributes if we can,
rather than relying on this extra attribute.
> 3. If certProfilesLastModified is really necessary, instead of
adding a
> separate cn=certProfilesInfo entry just to hold this attribute, we probably
> can move it into ou=certProfiles either by extending the organizationalUnit
> object class or adding an auxiliary object class. We probably should make it
> an optional attribute (i.e. no attribute means never updated).
>
This is a nice idea. If we keep it, I will do as you suggest.
Agreed.
> 4. I'm not sure if we really need the certProfileIsDefault
attribute.
> There's no guarantee that the value will be accurate because someone could
> modify the certProfileConfig directly and forget to update
> certProfileIsDefault. Also, if we need to do any profile upgrade, it should
> be based on the actual configuration parameters in certProfileConfig, not
> based on the certProfileIsDefault.
>
This attribute was intended for use by upgrade scripts. I'm not
precious about keeping it, but it may be useful. OTOH, default
profile updates are rare enough that all the information for a
three-way merge could be included in the upgrade helper. So it can
probably be removed as you suggest.
I agree on removing this attribute.
> 5. In LDAPConfigStore let's not use the 'm' prefix
for the field names. It's
> a legacy convention and we should not use it for newer code.
>
OK
yes - no Hungarian notation please!
Also, perhaps rename attrs to createAttrs in LDAPConfigStore
The comment is also wrong in line 61 -- not a File Config store.
Line 65 decuments an argument cn which is not in the method signature.
> 6. The mInDatabase in LDAPConfigStore doesn't seem to be used anywhere.
>
Yep, I didn't end up using it. Good catch.
Actually, I caught this too, by looking at the code using eclipse. In
general, you should make sure that any code that you are adding does not
add any additional warnings.
> 7. In LDAPConfigStore the certProfileConfig attribute is read as binary
> using getByteValues(). Is there a specific reason? Can we use
> getStringValues() since the content is a string (i.e. property file)?
>
The load() function takes in InputStream, which is a byte stream
abstraction. getByteValues() result in the least work. If the
bytes/chars discrepancy is a cause for concern, I can change the
LDAP syntax to Octet String.
+1 for using getStringValues().
Do any of these InputStreams and OutputStreams require close()?
I think we need to think about refactoring the DBManager/ LDAPConnection
code so that the LDAPConnection implements Closeable. Then we can
manage all of these resources using try-with-resources constructions,
and not have to worry about finally and nested finally blocks.
This should probably be a separate patch, but it would be nice to do
that refactoring first, so that we could use the new cleaner code
structure here.
Is there any synchronization required for the commit() for
LDAPConfigStore()?
> 8. The ProfileService constructs the profile DN. I think this
level of
> details should be hidden in the ProfileSubsystem layer. The ProfileService
> shouldn't need to know where/how the profiles are stored.
>
This was the simply implementation based on existing usage of
ProfileService, i.e. the existing implementation told
ProfileSubsystem about file locations. I will do this refactor.
Agreed.
> 9. The ProfileAdminServlet calls
ProfileSubsystem.createProfile() but it
> supplies a config path instead of a DN. As in #8, I think the caller should
> only specify the profile ID, it's up to the ProfileSubsystem to determine
> the actual location (i.e. profile DN).
>
Whups, I missed this class. Will update.
OK
> 10. The mProfileDNs in ProfileSubsystem shouldn't be
necessary because we
> can generate the DN from the profileId since it's a flat tree.
>
This was motivated by the fact that the caller of
ProfileSubsystem.createProfile would specify the DN (see #8). Will
remove in the refactor.
+1
ProfileSubsystem.createProfileConfig() does nothing now. Lets remove it
and its references.
> 11. The profile subsystem index is hard-coded in the following
line:
>
> cs.remove("subsystem.1.enabled");
>
> Although this code is modifying the standard CS.cfg, it would be better to
> do a search the index, then make the modification with the index.
>
> int index = ... find subsystem index where id=profile ...
> cs.remove("subsystem." + index + ".enabled");
>
> This will avoid problems if we ever add a default subsystem in the future.
>
Fair enough; will update.
Better still would be some methods to either get/enable/disable specific
subsystems. Presumably, these methods would live in CMSEngine.java or
some such.
> 12. The profile-show-raw is essentially the same as
profile-show, except the
> output format is different. I'd suggest merging them into profile-show and
> use an option like --raw to show the raw profile.
>
> About the out-of-band class ID, I think we should just map it into a
> 'virtual' property in the raw profile (e.g. class_id=...). The property
will
> only exist if the client pulls the raw profile. As already in done the
> patch, in the database it will be stored in classId attribute instead of
> certProfileConfig. In the long term all properties will be converted into
> separate attributes like this, and the 'raw' format should only exist as a
> legacy interface.
>
Will assess impact of this change on the API (e.g., it may be
acceptable to have `null' classId, in which case it is looked for in
the config). It will certainly simplify the "unified" CLI command
implementation you suggest.
Agreed - I prefer not to add another CLI command for a different output
format. We will already have two formats for profile-show -- xml or
json. raw is just another.
> 13. The ProfileResource.retrieveProfileRaw() returns a byte[]. Although it
> works just fine for this purpose, I think returning a Properties would make
> it more developer-friendly. That way the output is readily usable, and it
> takes care of any CR/LF issue across different platforms. Maybe call it
> getProfileProperties()?
>
I'll look into this implications and benefits of doing this... once
I've done all the other things :)
+1 Lets make it more developer friendly.
> 14. The CAInstallerService.importProfiles() and importProfile()
don't need
> to be static. As virtual methods it will have access to other member
> attributes/methods already defined in the class and its super classes (e.g.
> config store). A long term goal is to eliminate the use of static methods in
> CMS (it's not very modular).
>
Yep, there's a ConfigStore already available. Will change to
non-static.
> 15. Minor. I see two styles of writing the try-catch block in the patch:
>
> try {
> ...
> } catch (...) {
> ...
> }
>
> and
>
> try {
> ...
> }
> catch (...) {
> ...
> }
>
> I think the first one is more common.
>
Yes - please use first version.
> 16. Minor. Instead of adding the enabled parameter to the existing
> SubsystemInfo constructor (and having to modify all invocations), it's also
> possible to create a new constructor with the enabled parameter and call it
> from the old constructor with enabled set to true.
>
Will do #15 and #16.
Otherwise, this looks like a great start (and a lot fewer changes than I
would have expected). Nice.
Ade
> --
> Endi S. Dewata
_______________________________________________
Pki-devel mailing list
Pki-devel(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel