jackrabbit-oak-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Francesco Mari (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (OAK-4599) SecurityProviderRegistration fails to update config param of SecurityConfiguration(s)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 14:45:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15404112#comment-15404112
] 

Francesco Mari commented on OAK-4599:
-------------------------------------

[~anchela], I didn't find any better way of writing a test against a full OSGi deployment.
I recognize that testing a very specific section of code buried under dozens of line of OSGi-related
code can be problematic at best, so I strongly approve the approach of your latest patch.
If something is hard to test precisely, it's way better to factor it out and make it more
test-friendly.

> SecurityProviderRegistration fails to update config param of SecurityConfiguration(s)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-4599
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4599
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.8, 1.2.16, 1.0.32, 1.4.5, 1.5.6
>            Reporter: angela
>            Assignee: angela
>         Attachments: OAK-4599_test_1_2.patch, OAK-4599_test_trunk.patch, OAK-4599_trunk_var2.patch
>
>
> h4. Steps to reproduce
> - start Oak repository in OSGi setup with additional required (custom) services that
are passed to various security modules as config parameter such as e.g. {{RestrictionProvider}},
{{UserAuthenticationFactory}}, {{AuthorizableNodeName}} or {{AuthorizableActionProvider}}
> - verify that the security setup contains the custom configurations
> - now, force a re-registration of the {{SecurityProvider}} by changing a referenced/required
security service, which is not associated with the custom configuration as specified in the
initial setup
> - once completed any {{SecurityConfiguration}}, that is associated with custom configuration
params such as the examples listed above will no longer have the corresponding params set.
> h4. Finding step by step
> - {{SecurityProviderRegistration}} waits until all configured required service  references
have been registered and all non-dynamic references have been resolved. 
> - Once everything is resolved the {{SecurityProviderRegistration}} looks as expected
including all configuration parameters
> - {{SecurityProviderRegistration}} now starts creating a new {{SecurityProvider}} instance
with all the unary and required module references.
> - During this step it also calls {{initializeConfiguration}} in order to have the modules
populated with additional stuff from the {{SecurityProviderRegistration}} and it's here we
have IMHO a bug: The {{initializeConfiguration}} will push the params from {{SecurityProviderRegistration}}
to the {{SecurityConfiguration}}, while at the same time trying to merge params defined directly
on the {{SecurityConfiguration}}.
> h4. Explanation
> In a plain Java setup as it was initial designed for the {{SecurityProviderImpl}}: The
'local' params from {{SecurityConfiguration}} need to take precedence over those present in
{{SecurityProvider}}.
> However, In our new, pure Osgi setup, where there is no such mixed-param-setup, we would
need a mandatory overwrite of e.g. {{RestrictionProvider}} (s) or {{AuthorizableActionProvider}}
(s), because the _old_ values in the {{SecurityConfiguration}} had not been provided by it's
own config but as a matter of fact refer to the old values of the {{SecurityProviderRegistration}},
which got unregistered and thus are stale service references.
> h4. Potential Fixes
> In any case we must have a unit-test that illustrates the problem and allows us to verify
that whatever fix we apply actually addresses the problem. I will try to provide that today.
> h5. Variant 1
> Looking back my feeling is, that we should have moved all those extra-params that get
pushed to the {{SecurityConfiguration}} as references to the modules. Not sure if/how that
is feasible at the current state without risking too many compatibility issues and regressions.
> h5. Variant 2
> Since we no longer have a mixed java/osgi setup since the introduction of the {{SecurityProviderRegistration}}
and removed the OSGi-annotations from the old (now pure java) {{SecurityProviderImpl}}, we
might consider just changing the following call in {{SecurityProviderRegistration}} from:
> {code}base.setParameters(ConfigurationParameters.of(parameters, base.getParameters()));{code}
> to 
> {code}base.setParameters(ConfigurationParameters.of(base.getParameters(), parameters));{code}
> and thus actually doing what we intend to do: replace the existing entries in the {{SecurityConfiguration}}
by the new ones.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message