On 07/24/2012 04:50 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 07/24/2012 02:49 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 07/24/2012 02:06 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 07/24/2012 12:01 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Hi,
There are two problems in task naming in LDAP updates:
1. Randomness may be scarce in virtual machines
2. Random number is added to the time value rounded to a second
The second issue leads to values that may repeat themselves as time
only grows and random number is non-negative as well, so
t2+r2 can be equal to t1+t2 generated earlier.
Since task name is a DN, there is no strict requirement to use an
integer value. Instead, we can take time and attribute name. To
get
reasonable 'randomness' these values are then hashed with sha1 and
use
the resulting string as task name.
SHA1 may technically be an overkill here as we could simply use
indextask_$date_$attribute
where $date is a value of time.time() but SHA1 gives a resonable
'randomness' into the string.
What kind of randomness do you mean? SHA1 is deterministic, it
doesn't
add any randomness at all. It just obscures what's really happening.
Hence using quotes to describe it. We don't need randomness in the
task
names, we need something that avoids collisions.
An issue here is in time.time() -- it may give us sub-second
resolution
if underlying OS supports it, it may not. Having a second-level
resolution is not enough, especially on fast machines, so we can't
simply use int(times.time()) as it was in the original version.
indextask_$date_$attribute has this issue that we don't have enough
guarantee for $date (time.time()) to be unique in sufficiently tight
conditions, thus use of SHA-1 to generate something that has better
chances to avoid collisions than $data_$attribute.
My point is that if "indextask_$date_$attribute" is not unique,
neither is SHA1("indextask_$date_$attribute"). Hashing has no effect
on the chance of collisions.
You could use Python's pseudorandom number generator (random.randint)
instead of random.SystemRandom. It's not cryptographically secure but
it's enough to avoid collisions, and it doesn't use up system entropy
(except for initial seeding, through `import random`).
"indextask_$date_$attribute_$pseudorandomvalue" should be unique
enough.
Using random here is really bad.
What we ideally need is a method to increment sequential calls for
the same attribute.We use seconds to differentiate
between all tasks but that is not really required, tasks that were
processed will be removed.
Or maybe use $date_$attribute and just warn (ignore the error) if
there's a duplicate -- if a reindex task for the same attribute already
exists from the same second, do we really need to start a new one?
That is true.
We can generate a UUID, I think that is probably a better/safer thing
to use overall.
Updated patch attached.
2012-07-24T14:36:31Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberOf
2012-07-24T14:36:31Z DEBUG Task id:
cn=indextask_memberOf_135624333918176170_14302,cn=index,cn=tasks,cn=config
2012-07-24T14:36:32Z INFO Indexing finished
...
2012-07-24T14:36:43Z INFO Creating task to index attribute: memberUser
2012-07-24T14:36:43Z DEBUG Task id:
cn=indextask_memberUser_135624334038532670_14302,cn=index,cn=tasks,cn=config
2012-07-24T14:36:44Z INFO Indexing finished
You can note that clock_seq does not change, it is because uuid.uuid1()
uses nanosecond resolution and uuid_generate_time() if the latter is
available. If we happen to ask for uuids within sub-nanosecond interval,
clock_seq will be different then.
I'm extracting only time and clock_seq instead of pasting full uuid
value because uuid_generate_time() will leak out ethernet MAC address
for 48-bit node. We don't need more bits here so I drop these 48 bits
and avoid publishing the ethernet MAC address, even in logs.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Yes, this approach will work. Just some technical comments:
+ self.sub_dict['TIME'] = cn_uuid.get_time()
+ self.sub_dict['SEQ'] = cn_uuid.get_clock_seq()
Use the attributes, `cn_uuid.time` and `cn_uuid.clock_seq`. The accessor
methods are undocumented.
+ self.sub_dict['ATTR'] = attribute
- # Refresh the time to make uniqueness more probable. Add on some
- # randomness for good measure.
- self.sub_dict['TIME'] = int(time.time()) + r.randint(0,10000)
+ cn = self._template_str("indextask_${ATTR}_${TIME}_${SEQ}")
You're overwriting sub_dict['TIME'], which is used elsewhere in the
class. That could cause trouble.
There's no reason to use sub_dict here; you can simply do:
cn = 'indextask_%s_%s_%s' % (attribute, cn_uuid.time, cn_uuid.clock_seq)
--
Petr³
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
