[389-users] Problems with chaining (was: RE: Sanity check for install approach)

Mon Aug 2 15:33:58 UTC 2010

Jonathan Boulle wrote:
> Sorry, I thought I'd trawled the archives but apparently missed this one. 
> I'm not alone, this chap already described the exact same issue - although no solution:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-directory-users@redhat.com/msg09880.html
>   
It's a bug - can't remember the bug number - you might check the 389 
bugs to find this one
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 389-users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:389-users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Boulle
> Sent: 30 July 2010 17:18
> To: 'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.'
> Subject: [389-users] Problems with chaining (was: RE: Sanity check for install approach)
>
> I've done a colossal amount of reading and experimentation to remedy the ignorance demonstrated in my last email, so let's start again:
>
> I have, in a simple two-node (one supplier, one consumer) setup:
> - Consumer set up with one local database (replicated from the supplier),  + one database link back to the supplier
> - Suffix dc=example using both of these databases, + replication plugin (with repl_chain_on_update) enabled, + suffix request processing set to "use the databases" (i.e. no referrals)
> - Database link on the consumer using cn=replication manager,cn=config; an ACI on the supplier of (targetattr = "*")(version 3.0; acl "proxy acl"; allow(proxy) userdn="ldap:///cn=replication manager,cn=config";)
>
> So, on a client which is pointed towards the consumer, let's try modify something:
>
> [bloggsj at client02 ~]$ ldapmodify -x -ZZ -D uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example  -w example
> dn: uid=bloggsj,ou=People,dc=example
> changetype: modify
> replace: title
> title: Sir
>
> modifying entry "uid=bloggsj,ou=People,dc=example"
>
> ---
>
>
> On the supplier I see the relevant bind requests (as replication user *and* as the bloggsj user, i.e. successfully proxied), and also that the change succeeds (I turned on some ACL logging):
>
> <snip>
> [30/Jul/2010:17:10:03 +0100] NSACLPlugin - proxied authorization dn is (uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example)
> [30/Jul/2010:17:10:03 +0100] NSACLPlugin - #### conn=26 op=2 binddn="cn=replication manager,cn=config"
> [30/Jul/2010:17:10:03 +0100] NSACLPlugin - #### conn=26 op=2 binddn="cn=replication manager,cn=config"
> <snip>
>  [30/Jul/2010:16:56:27 +0100] NSACLPlugin - conn=20 op=2 (main): Allow write on entry(uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example).attr(title) to proxy (uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example): allowed by aci(51): aciname= "Enable self write for common attributes", acidn="dc=example <snip>
>
> Great. Works fine, as expected. But if I try to change the userPassword, for some reason the database link does _not proxy the authorisation_, but instead uses the replication user to try make the change:
>
> [bloggsj at client02 ~]$ ldapmodify -x -ZZ -D uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example  -w example
> dn: uid=bloggsj,ou=People,dc=example
> changetype: modify
> replace: userPassword
> userPassword: abc123!@#
>
> modifying entry "uid=bloggsj,ou=People,dc=example"
> ldapmodify: Insufficient access (50)
> 	additional info: Insufficient 'write' privilege to the 'userPassword' attribute of entry 'uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example'.
>
> ---
>
> On the supplier:
>
> <snip>
> [30/Jul/2010:17:08:13 +0100] NSACLPlugin - #### conn=24 op=2 binddn="cn=replication manager,cn=config"
> <snip>
>  [30/Jul/2010:16:57:09 +0100] NSACLPlugin - conn=21 op=2 (main): Deny write on entry(uid=bloggsj,ou=people,dc=example).attr(userPassword) to cn=replication manager,cn=config: no aci matched the subject by aci(53): aciname= "self", acidn="dc=example"
> <snip>
>
>
> Why do userPassword  changes not proxy?
>
> I have tried
> - enabling/disabling "ACL Plugin" component to chain
> - enabling/disabling "password policy" component to chain
> - enabling/disabling various LDAP controls to chain
> - other attributes (homephone, surname, etc), all of which proxy fine to no avail.
>
>
> Rich (or anyone else :-), do you have any ideas? This really looks like a bug to me - I haven't started poking around in the source yet though.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 389-users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:389-users-bounces at lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Boulle
> Sent: 29 July 2010 14:54
> To: 'General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.'
> Subject: Re: [389-users] Sanity check for install approach
>
> On closer examination of the doc, it appears that chaining updates is only possible when using database links. 
> However, as I infer, using database links removes the possibility of replication, because the link would pass any modification back to the remote database. 
> Thus, if you had a consumer configured with a database link back to a supplier, and then set up a replication agreement from the supplier to the consumer, it would be replicating to its own database!
> Am I understanding this correctly?
>
> Is there a way to achieve our desired scenario: where no clients can directly access a read-write supplier (i.e. referrals are disabled, because network access is blocked); but they're still able to change their passwords, because the read-only consumer chains the update request back to a supplier?
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from 
> MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>