Thank you Jakub for comments I have replied on some inline others are
obvious or I'll reply later.
I was wondering If you or Pavel would mind If I broke the patch set into
2 separate sets and posted them in separate threads. Changes in first
patches makes me to manually edit rebase conflicts in later patches and
this is getting a bit tiring.
On 08/10/2014 06:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 06:36:02PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 02:37 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> On 08/01/2014 07:48 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> please see attached patches. Every patch is documented in its commit
>>> message.
>>>
>>> Generally speaking the first 6 patches are preparation for patch #8.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Pavel Reichl
>>>
>>> PS: I also attached output of my testing to make it more obvious how the
>>> patches are supposed to work.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> # john, people,
example.com
>>> dn: uid=john,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
>>> pwdAccountLockedTime: 000001010000Z
>>>
>>> # max, people,
example.com
>>> dn: uid=max,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
>>>
>>> # dick, people,
example.com
>>> dn: uid=dick,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
>>> pwdAccountLockedTime: 20140801115742Z
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> $ ssh -l john@openldap `hostname`
>>> Connection closed by UNKNOWN
>>>
>>> $ ssh -l max@openldap `hostname`
>>> Last login: Fri Aug 1 15:16:21 2014 from sssd.dev.work
>>>
>>> $ ssh -l dick@openldap `hostname`
>>> Last login: Fri Aug 1 12:57:33 2014
>> Patch #1:
>> Tentative ack, although you don't have to use tmp_ctx in
>> sdap_save_user_cache_bool(). You can just allocate attrs on NULL since it
>> is the only talloc context you use there.
>>
>> Patch #2:
>> Nack. I see it is safe here but please avoid initializing ret to EOK. Set
>> it to EOK at the end of the function instead.
>>
>> Patch #3:
>> Ack.
>>
>> Patch #4:
>> Typo in commit message "Also remove *sdap_access_filter_recv()* as it is
>> replaced by *sdap_access_filter_recv()*."
>>
>> But it's nack from me anyway.
>>
>> Tevent naming convention seems to be broken all around this code and this
>> patch actually makes it a little bit better. But you shouldn't use
>> function named "sdap_access_recv" inside "sdap_access_done".
>>
>> I see that sdap_access_send can invoke two different requests depending on
>> the configuration. Ideally both should have custom _recv and you should
>> use some kind of switch to determine which one should be called.
>>
>> I would be willing to tentatively ack a patch with let's say
>> "sdap_access_check_recv" or "sdap_access_subreq_recv" or
similar used in
>> sdap_access_done.
>>
>> Patch #5:
>> Ack.
>>
>> Patch #6:
>> Ack.
>>
>> Patch #7:
>> Ack. But please swap this ticket with #8. The feature should be first
>> implemented then documented.
>>
>> Patch #8:
>> I believe the following comment is copy & paste? It shouldn't say filter
>> request :)
>> + /* Connection to LDAP succeeded
>> + * Send filter request
>> + */
>>
>> + if (strcasecmp(pwdAccountLockedTime,
>> + PERMANENTLY_LOCKED_ACCOUNT) == 0) {
>> + locked = true;
>> + } else {
>> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
>> + "Account of: %s is beeing blocked by password
>> policy, "
>> + "but value: [%s] value is ignored by SSSD.\n",
>> + state->username, pwdAccountLockedTime);
>> + }
>>
>> Why do we ignore the value? Isn't the value a time? Shouldn't we check
if
>> lock_time < machine_time?
> Yes, it's time, but we care only if its the special value
'000001010000Z'
> otherwise we grant the access.
>> Also the ticket says that this policy is only enabled if pwdLockout is
>> true. Is it possible to acquire the attribute if pwdLockout is false? I
>> see you don't check it.
> Yes it's possible to acquire, I have updated the patches.
>> Those are questions that should be answered in the code if they are not
>> bugs.
>>
>> I haven't test the code yet - will it work also with 389ds or do you have
>> an OpenLDAP server I could use handy?
>>
> I'll try to grant you access to my VM as I find configuring ppolicy as very
> painful experience.
>> _______________________________________________
>> sssd-devel mailing list
>> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
> I hope I have addressed all you concerns and didn't produce many new bugs.
> :-)
>
>
Mostly looks OK to me (although I just quickly read the patches..), some
questions inline.
> From 96bb7442a9b9fc3f21e772e565fcf758b55c2dc9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:00:48 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 2/9] SDAP: refactor sdap_access_filter_send
>
> As preparation for ticket #2364 separate code for parsing user basedn
> to a new function sdap_get_basedn_user_entry().
> ---
> src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> index
0702c565a466ba067350595233f9746443d0864d..ddf623616f662d92fd751ff7952f08527c60be45 100644
> --- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> @@ -45,6 +45,11 @@ static errno_t sdap_save_user_cache_bool(struct sss_domain_info
*domain,
> const char *attr_name,
> bool value);
>
> +static errno_t sdap_get_basedn_user_entry(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> + struct ldb_message *user_entry,
> + const char *username,
> + char **_basedn);
> +
> static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> struct tevent_context *ev,
> struct be_ctx *be_ctx,
> @@ -666,7 +671,6 @@ static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
> {
> struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
> struct tevent_req *req;
> - const char *basedn;
> char *clean_username;
> errno_t ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
> char *name;
> @@ -704,20 +708,9 @@ static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
> goto done;
> }
>
> - /* Perform online operation */
> - basedn = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(user_entry, SYSDB_ORIG_DN, NULL);
> - if (basedn == NULL) {
> - DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,"Could not find originalDN for user
[%s]\n",
> - state->username);
> - ret = EINVAL;
> - goto done;
> - }
> -
> - state->basedn = talloc_strdup(state, basedn);
> - if (state->basedn == NULL) {
> - DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> - "Could not allocate memory for originalDN\n");
> - ret = ENOMEM;
> + ret = sdap_get_basedn_user_entry(state, user_entry, state->username,
> + &state->basedn);
> + if (ret != EOK) {
> goto done;
> }
>
> @@ -1141,3 +1134,32 @@ static errno_t sdap_access_host(struct ldb_message
*user_entry)
>
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +static errno_t sdap_get_basedn_user_entry(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> + struct ldb_message *user_entry,
> + const char *username,
> + char **_basedn)
> +{
> + const char *basedn;
> + errno_t ret;
> +
> + basedn = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_string(user_entry, SYSDB_ORIG_DN, NULL);
> + if (basedn == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,"Could not find originalDN for user
[%s]\n",
> + username);
> + ret = EINVAL;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + *_basedn = talloc_strdup(mem_ctx, basedn);
> + if (*_basedn == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> + "Could not allocate memory for originalDN\n");
> + ret = ENOMEM;
> + goto done;
> + }
Do we need to strdup the basedn here?
I think that we actually do not need to call
strdup. I guess we can just
point to address in user_entry as it's allocated on parent memory
context, so it should be accessible for lifetime 'filter' and 'lock'
requests.
> + ret = EOK;
> +
> +done:
> + return ret;
> +}
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> From e510dbbb83b75982ce755cc27d8754875832aa3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:22:21 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 4/9] SDAP: refactor sdap_access_filter_done
>
> As preparation for ticket #2364 move code from sdap_access_filter_done()
> into sdap_access_done() to make its reuse possible and thus avoid code
> duplication.
> ---
> src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> index
e54f4e0d5d13d72e8cb38bd1c827ea2f52e7dcef..68633643f7430c26885a78d2903e7a4dd636e1d5 100644
> --- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> @@ -60,8 +60,11 @@ static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
> struct sdap_id_conn_ctx *conn,
> const char *username,
> struct ldb_message *user_entry);
> +
> static errno_t sdap_access_filter_recv(struct tevent_req *req);
>
> +static errno_t sdap_access_subreq_recv(struct tevent_req *req);
> +
> static errno_t sdap_account_expired(struct sdap_access_ctx *access_ctx,
> struct pam_data *pd,
> struct ldb_message *user_entry);
> @@ -219,14 +222,14 @@ static errno_t check_next_rule(struct sdap_access_req_ctx
*state,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void sdap_access_filter_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> +static void sdap_access_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> {
> errno_t ret;
> struct tevent_req *req = tevent_req_callback_data(subreq, struct tevent_req);
> struct sdap_access_req_ctx *state =
> tevent_req_data(req, struct sdap_access_req_ctx);
>
> - ret = sdap_access_filter_recv(subreq);
> + ret = sdap_access_subreq_recv(subreq);
> talloc_zfree(subreq);
> if (ret != EOK) {
> DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Error retrieving access check
result.\n");
> @@ -249,6 +252,11 @@ static void sdap_access_filter_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> }
> }
>
> +static void sdap_access_filter_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> +{
> + sdap_access_done(subreq);
> +}
> +
> errno_t sdap_access_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> {
> TEVENT_REQ_RETURN_ON_ERROR(req);
> @@ -256,7 +264,6 @@ errno_t sdap_access_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> return EOK;
> }
>
> -
> #define SHADOW_EXPIRE_MSG "Account expired according to shadow
attributes"
>
> static errno_t sdap_account_expired_shadow(struct pam_data *pd,
> @@ -644,6 +651,10 @@ static errno_t sdap_account_expired(struct sdap_access_ctx
*access_ctx,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +enum sdap_access_control_type {
> + SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_FILTER,
> +};
> +
> struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx {
> const char *username;
> const char *filter;
> @@ -656,6 +667,7 @@ struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx {
> struct sss_domain_info *domain;
> bool cached_access;
> char *basedn;
> + enum sdap_access_control_type ac_type;
> };
>
> static errno_t sdap_access_filter_decide_offline(struct tevent_req *req);
> @@ -696,6 +708,7 @@ static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
> state->ev = ev;
> state->access_ctx = access_ctx;
> state->domain = domain;
> + state->ac_type = SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_FILTER;
>
> DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
> "Performing access filter check for user [%s]\n", username);
> @@ -772,6 +785,27 @@ done:
> return req;
> }
>
> +static errno_t sdap_access_subreq_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> +{
> + struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
> + errno_t ret;
> +
> + state = tevent_req_data(req, struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx);
> +
> + switch(state->ac_type) {
> + case SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_FILTER:
> + ret = sdap_access_filter_recv(req);
> + break;
> + default:
> + ret = EINVAL;
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE, "Unknown access control type: %d.",
> + state->ac_type);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
This function is misplaced, it immediatelly follows _send() in the code.
_recv() should be the last in the flow.
Hopefully it's fixed now.
> static errno_t sdap_access_filter_decide_offline(struct
tevent_req *req)
> {
> struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state =
> @@ -956,7 +990,6 @@ static errno_t sdap_access_filter_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> return EOK;
> }
>
> -
> #define AUTHR_SRV_MISSING_MSG "Authorized service attribute missing, " \
> "access denied"
> #define AUTHR_SRV_DENY_MSG "Access denied by authorized service
attribute"
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> From 7f612f108f158d942beee6740ee10293c259dbfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:05:53 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 7/9] SDAP: new option - DN to ppolicy on LDAP
Do we need to make the DN configurable? When you install the ppolicy,
can you actually set the DN?
I haven't tested setting different DN, but I
believe it's possible.
During weekend I was putting my notes for setting ppolicy on OpenLDAP on
this wiki page
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/openldap_ppolicy#Loadingppolicyoverlay (this
is work in progress and I'm not even sure we care to have such a how-to
on our wiki), but I believe you can see from there that DN is configurable.
Still we could use a default DN if user didn't set DN himself:
"cn=ppolicy,ou=policies,$search_base"
> From f6cdc0ce09645cae4254c4e6cb6dfc24de0545e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:44:24 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 8/9] SDAP: account lock to restrict access via ssh key
>
> Be able to configure sssd to honor openldap account lock to restrict
> access via ssh key. Introduce new ldap_access_order value ('lock')
> for enabling/disabling this feature.
>
> Resolves:
>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2364
> ---
> src/providers/ldap/ldap_init.c | 2 +
> src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c | 439 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.h | 4 +
> 3 files changed, 445 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_init.c b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_init.c
> index
9960fd3ab7a6e446e5cdc1e8fa4984aab812d980..85d9acef1d2dd55361cba2ae67376673fe67d021 100644
> --- a/src/providers/ldap/ldap_init.c
> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/ldap_init.c
> @@ -421,6 +421,8 @@ int sssm_ldap_access_init(struct be_ctx *bectx,
> access_ctx->access_rule[c] = LDAP_ACCESS_SERVICE;
> } else if (strcasecmp(order_list[c], LDAP_ACCESS_HOST_NAME) == 0) {
> access_ctx->access_rule[c] = LDAP_ACCESS_HOST;
> + } else if (strcasecmp(order_list[c], LDAP_ACCESS_LOCK_NAME) == 0) {
> + access_ctx->access_rule[c] = LDAP_ACCESS_LOCK;
> } else {
> DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> "Unexpected access rule name [%s].\n", order_list[c]);
> diff --git a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> index
248ffbad44d9aa4794b6042f9a825639277cc1e9..e1bc018835f98661683bb8971ff2c8be6b3bcf99 100644
> --- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> +++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_access.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> #include "providers/data_provider.h"
> #include "providers/dp_backend.h"
>
> +#define PERMANENTLY_LOCKED_ACCOUNT "000001010000Z"
> #define MALFORMED_FILTER "Malformed access control filter [%s]\n"
>
> static errno_t sdap_save_user_cache_bool(struct sss_domain_info *domain,
> @@ -52,6 +53,18 @@ static errno_t sdap_get_basedn_user_entry(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> const char *username,
> char **_basedn);
>
> +static struct tevent_req *
> +sdap_access_lock_send(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> + struct tevent_context *ev,
> + struct be_ctx *be_ctx,
> + struct sss_domain_info *domain,
> + struct sdap_access_ctx *access_ctx,
> + struct sdap_id_conn_ctx *conn,
> + const char *username,
> + struct ldb_message *user_entry);
> +
> +static void sdap_access_lock_done(struct tevent_req *subreq);
> +
> static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> struct tevent_context *ev,
> struct be_ctx *be_ctx,
> @@ -63,6 +76,8 @@ static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX
*mem_ctx,
>
> static errno_t sdap_access_filter_recv(struct tevent_req *req);
>
> +static errno_t sdap_access_lock_recv(struct tevent_req *req);
> +
> static errno_t sdap_access_subreq_recv(struct tevent_req *req);
>
> static errno_t sdap_account_expired(struct sdap_access_ctx *access_ctx,
> @@ -182,6 +197,24 @@ static errno_t check_next_rule(struct sdap_access_req_ctx
*state,
> /* we are done with no errors */
> return EOK;
>
> + case LDAP_ACCESS_LOCK:
> + ret = EOK;
> +
> + subreq = sdap_access_lock_send(state, state->ev, state->be_ctx,
> + state->domain,
> + state->access_ctx,
> + state->conn,
> + state->pd->user,
> + state->user_entry);
> + if (subreq == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "sdap_access_lock_send
failed.\n");
> + return ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + tevent_req_set_callback(subreq, sdap_access_lock_done, req);
> + return EAGAIN;
> + break;
> +
> case LDAP_ACCESS_FILTER:
> subreq = sdap_access_filter_send(state, state->ev,
state->be_ctx,
> state->domain,
> @@ -658,6 +691,7 @@ static errno_t sdap_account_expired(struct sdap_access_ctx
*access_ctx,
>
> enum sdap_access_control_type {
> SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_FILTER,
> + SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_LOCK,
The code looks for a specific lock type, so the enum should be named
with a more specific name, too, maybe something like
SDAP_ACCESS_PPOLICY_LOCK?
> };
>
> struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx {
> @@ -678,8 +712,10 @@ struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx {
>
> static errno_t sdap_access_decide_offline(struct tevent_req *req);
> static int sdap_access_filter_retry(struct tevent_req *req);
> +static void sdap_access_lock_connect_done(struct tevent_req *subreq);
> static void sdap_access_filter_connect_done(struct tevent_req *subreq);
> static void sdap_access_filter_get_access_done(struct tevent_req *req);
> +
> static struct tevent_req *sdap_access_filter_send(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> struct tevent_context *ev,
> struct be_ctx *be_ctx,
> @@ -802,6 +838,9 @@ static errno_t sdap_access_subreq_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> case SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_FILTER:
> ret = sdap_access_filter_recv(req);
> break;
> + case SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_LOCK:
> + ret = sdap_access_lock_recv(req);
> + break;
> default:
> ret = EINVAL;
> DEBUG(SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE, "Unknown access control type: %d.",
> @@ -996,6 +1035,13 @@ static errno_t sdap_access_filter_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> return EOK;
> }
>
> +static errno_t sdap_access_lock_recv(struct tevent_req *req)
> +{
> + TEVENT_REQ_RETURN_ON_ERROR(req);
> +
> + return EOK;
> +}
> +
This function seems misplaced, the order of tevent code is
foo_send()
foo_step1()
foo_step2()
foo_recv();
Here you have recv() before send();
> #define AUTHR_SRV_MISSING_MSG "Authorized service attribute missing, " \
> "access denied"
> #define AUTHR_SRV_DENY_MSG "Access denied by authorized service
attribute"
> @@ -1172,6 +1218,399 @@ static errno_t sdap_access_host(struct ldb_message
*user_entry)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void sdap_access_lock_get_lockout_done(struct tevent_req *subreq);
> +static int sdap_access_lock_retry(struct tevent_req *req);
> +static struct tevent_req*
> +sdap_access_locked_time_send(struct tevent_req *req);
> +static void sdap_access_locked_time_done(struct tevent_req *subreq);
> +
> +static struct tevent_req *
> +sdap_access_lock_send(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
> + struct tevent_context *ev,
> + struct be_ctx *be_ctx,
> + struct sss_domain_info *domain,
> + struct sdap_access_ctx *access_ctx,
> + struct sdap_id_conn_ctx *conn,
> + const char *username,
> + struct ldb_message *user_entry)
> +{
> + struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
Please don't reuse one state for two requests, that's quite dangerous.
> + struct tevent_req *req;
> + errno_t ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
> +
> + req = tevent_req_create(mem_ctx,
> + &state, struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx);
> + if (req == NULL) {
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + state->filter = NULL;
> + state->username = username;
> + state->opts = access_ctx->id_ctx->opts;
> + state->conn = conn;
> + state->ev = ev;
> + state->access_ctx = access_ctx;
> + state->domain = domain;
> + state->ac_type = SDAP_ACCESS_CONTROL_LOCK;
> +
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
> + "Performing access lock check for user [%s]\n", username);
> +
> + state->cached_access = ldb_msg_find_attr_as_bool(user_entry,
> + SYSDB_LDAP_ACCESS_CACHED,
> + false);
> +
> + /* Ok, we have one result, check if we are online or offline */
> + if (be_is_offline(be_ctx)) {
> + /* Ok, we're offline. Return from the cache */
> + ret = sdap_access_decide_offline(req);
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + ret = sdap_get_basedn_user_entry(state, user_entry, state->username,
> + &state->basedn);
> + if (ret != EOK) {
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC, "Checking lock against LDAP\n");
> +
> + state->sdap_op = sdap_id_op_create(state,
> + state->conn->conn_cache);
> + if (!state->sdap_op) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "sdap_id_op_create failed\n");
> + ret = ENOMEM;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + ret = sdap_access_lock_retry(req);
> + if (ret != EOK) {
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + return req;
> +
> +done:
> + if (ret == EOK) {
> + tevent_req_done(req);
> + } else {
> + tevent_req_error(req, ret);
> + }
> + tevent_req_post(req, ev);
> + return req;
> +}
> +
> +static int sdap_access_lock_retry(struct tevent_req *req)
> +{
> + struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
> + struct tevent_req *subreq;
> + int ret;
> +
> + state = tevent_req_data(req, struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx);
> + subreq = sdap_id_op_connect_send(state->sdap_op, state, &ret);
> + if (!subreq) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE,
> + "sdap_id_op_connect_send failed: %d (%s)\n", ret,
strerror(ret));
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + tevent_req_set_callback(subreq, sdap_access_lock_connect_done, req);
> + return EOK;
> +}
> +
> +static void sdap_access_lock_connect_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> +{
> + struct tevent_req *req;
> + struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
> + int ret, dp_error;
> + const char *attrs[] = { SYSDB_LDAP_ACCESS_LOCKOUT, NULL };
> + const char *ppolicy_dn;
> +
> + req = tevent_req_callback_data(subreq, struct tevent_req);
> + state = tevent_req_data(req, struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx);
> +
> + ret = sdap_id_op_connect_recv(subreq, &dp_error);
> + talloc_zfree(subreq);
> +
> + if (ret != EOK) {
> + if (dp_error == DP_ERR_OFFLINE) {
> + ret = sdap_access_decide_offline(req);
> + if (ret == EOK) {
> + tevent_req_done(req);
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + tevent_req_error(req, ret);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + ppolicy_dn = dp_opt_get_string(state->opts->basic,
> + SDAP_PPOLICY_SEARCH_BASE);
> + /* We can't find out if ppolicy is enabled, so we deny access */
> + if (ppolicy_dn == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CONF_SETTINGS,
> + "ldap_ppolicy_search_base was not defined in configuration
file."
> + " Access is denied!\n");
> + tevent_req_error(req, ERR_ACCESS_DENIED);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Connection to LDAP succeeded
> + * Send 'pwdLockout' request
> + */
> + subreq = sdap_get_generic_send(state,
> + state->ev,
> + state->opts,
> + sdap_id_op_handle(state->sdap_op),
> + ppolicy_dn,
> + LDAP_SCOPE_BASE,
> + NULL, attrs,
> + NULL, 0,
> + dp_opt_get_int(state->opts->basic,
> + SDAP_SEARCH_TIMEOUT),
> + false);
> + if (subreq == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Could not start LDAP
communication\n");
> + tevent_req_error(req, EIO);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + tevent_req_set_callback(subreq, sdap_access_lock_get_lockout_done, req);
> +}
> +
> +static void sdap_access_lock_get_lockout_done(struct tevent_req *subreq)
> +{
> + int ret, tret, dp_error;
> + size_t num_results;
> + bool pwdLockout = false;
> + struct sysdb_attrs **results;
> + struct tevent_req *req;
> + struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx *state;
> +
> + req = tevent_req_callback_data(subreq, struct tevent_req);
> + state = tevent_req_data(req, struct sdap_access_filter_req_ctx);
> +
> + ret = sdap_get_generic_recv(subreq, state, &num_results, &results);
> + talloc_zfree(subreq);
> +
> + /* Check the number of responses we got
> + * If it's exactly 1, we passed the check
> + * If it's < 1, we failed the check
> + * Anything else is an error
> + */
> + if (num_results < 1) {
> + // todo doplnit base
czech todo and a C++ comment...baad :-)
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CONF_SETTINGS,
> + "[%s] was not found."
> + "Granting access.\n", SYSDB_LDAP_ACCESS_LOCKOUT);
> + } else if (results == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "num_results > 0, but results is
NULL\n");
> + ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
> + goto done;
> + } else if (num_results > 1) {
> + /* It should not be possible to get more than one reply
> + * here, since we're doing a base-scoped search
> + */
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Received multiple replies\n");
> + ret = ERR_INTERNAL;
> + goto done;
> + } else { /* Ok, we got a single reply */
> + ret = sysdb_attrs_get_bool(results[0], SYSDB_LDAP_ACCESS_LOCKOUT,
> + &pwdLockout);
You don't check ret here.
> + }
> +
> + if (pwdLockout) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
> + "Password policy is enabled on LDAP server.\n");
> +
> + subreq = sdap_access_locked_time_send(req);
This function name shouldn't end with _send, it's not a standalone
request. We tend to use _step for these. Also is there any reason why
you can't set the callback inside the function and return just errno?
Alternatively, don't wrap the search in a function and just put the
contents of sdap_access_locked_time_send() here.
> + if (subreq == NULL) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "sdap_access_lock_send
failed.\n");
> + ret = ENOMEM;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + tevent_req_set_callback(subreq, sdap_access_locked_time_done, req);
> + ret = EAGAIN;
> + goto done;
> +
> + } else {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC,
> + "Password policy is disabled on LDAP server "
> + "- storing 'access granted' in sysdb.\n");
> + tret = sdap_save_user_cache_bool(state->domain, state->username,
> + SYSDB_LDAP_ACCESS_CACHED, true);
> + if (tret != EOK) {
> + /* Failing to save to the cache is non-fatal.
> + * Just return the result.
> + */
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> + "Failed to set user locked attribute\n");
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + ret = EOK;
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> +done:
> + if (ret != EAGAIN) {
> + /* release connection */
> + tret = sdap_id_op_done(state->sdap_op, ret, &dp_error);
> + if (tret != EOK) {
> + DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE,
> + "sdap_get_generic_send() returned error [%d][%s]\n",
> + ret, sss_strerror(ret));
> + }
> +
> + if (ret == EOK) {
> + tevent_req_done(req);
> + } else {
> + tevent_req_error(req, ret);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel