Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Jan Cholasta]

On 21.11.2016 17:08, Standa Laznicka wrote:

On 10/10/2016 08:47 AM, Standa Laznicka wrote:

On 10/10/2016 07:53 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 7.10.2016 12:23, Standa Laznicka wrote:

On 10/07/2016 08:31 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 17.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises
question
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested
entries or
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit'
attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin
(which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely
not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get
everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment
size_limit
is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of
the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due
to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited
from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause
problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the
ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries()
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be
fixed.



Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more
profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you
pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the
result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something
else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we
have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is
not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of
currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the
number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit.
However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than
ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if
someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put
this into a separate commit.


Please see the attached patches, then.


Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the
code. I
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the
other two
patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).


Works for me, but this bit in patch 0064 looks suspicious to me:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) ==
max_entries:

Shouldn't it rather be:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) >=
max_entries:

?


The length of entries list should not exceed max_entries if size_limit
is properly implemented. Therefore the list you get from execute()
should not have more then max_entries entries. You shouldn't also be
able to append a legacy entry to entries list if this check is the
first
thing you do.


That's a lot of shoulds :-) I would expect at least an assert
statement to make sure everything is right.



That being said, >= could be used but then some popping of entries from
entries list would be necessary. But it's perhaps safer to do, although
if there's a bug, it won't be that obvious :)


OK, nevermind then, just add the assert please, to make bugs *very*
obvious.


An assert seems like a very good idea, attached is an asserting patch.




Attached is the patch rebased on the current master. Renumbered it a bit
as previous numbers could've been confusing so I also omitted the
revision number.


ACK. Removed a 

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Standa Laznicka]

On 10/10/2016 07:53 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 7.10.2016 12:23, Standa Laznicka wrote:

On 10/07/2016 08:31 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 17.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises 
question

in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit'
attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin
(which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not 
used

properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get
everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit
is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?
AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due 
to the

fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause
problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the 
ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries()
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be 
fixed.




Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more
profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass 
the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result 
size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else 
with

it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we
have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of
currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the 
number of

returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit.
However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than
ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if
someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put
this into a separate commit.


Please see the attached patches, then.

Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the 
code. I
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the 
other two

patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).


Works for me, but this bit in patch 0064 looks suspicious to me:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) ==
max_entries:

Shouldn't it rather be:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) >=
max_entries:

?


The length of entries list should not exceed max_entries if size_limit
is properly implemented. Therefore the list you get from execute()
should not have more then max_entries entries. You shouldn't also be
able to append a legacy entry to entries list if this check is the first
thing you do.


That's a lot of shoulds :-) I would expect at least an assert 
statement to make sure everything is right.




That being said, >= could be used but then some popping of entries from
entries list would be necessary. But it's perhaps safer to do, although
if there's a bug, it won't be that obvious :)


OK, nevermind then, just add the assert please, to make bugs *very* 
obvious.



An assert seems like a very good idea, attached is an asserting patch.

From 8af317a2fb8d3d3976c69620baf70171653cb925 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stanislav Laznicka 
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:35:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] permission-find: fix a sizelimit off-by-one bug

permission-find: sizelimit 

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Jan Cholasta]

On 7.10.2016 12:23, Standa Laznicka wrote:

On 10/07/2016 08:31 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 17.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit'
attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin
(which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get
everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit
is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause
problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries()
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.



Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more
profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we
have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of
currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit.
However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than
ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if
someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put
this into a separate commit.


Please see the attached patches, then.


Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the code. I
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the other two
patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).


Works for me, but this bit in patch 0064 looks suspicious to me:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) ==
max_entries:

Shouldn't it rather be:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) >=
max_entries:

?


The length of entries list should not exceed max_entries if size_limit
is properly implemented. Therefore the list you get from execute()
should not have more then max_entries entries. You shouldn't also be
able to append a legacy entry to entries list if this check is the first
thing you do.


That's a lot of shoulds :-) I would expect at least an assert statement 
to make sure everything is right.




That being said, >= could be used but then some popping of entries from
entries list would be necessary. But it's perhaps safer to do, although
if there's a bug, it won't be that obvious :)


OK, nevermind then, just add the assert please, to make bugs *very* obvious.

--
Jan Cholasta

--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Standa Laznicka]

On 10/07/2016 08:31 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 17.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit'
attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin 
(which is

usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get
everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit
is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause 
problems

should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries()
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.



Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more 
profound

changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we 
have to

do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of
currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit. 
However,

it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than 
ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if 
someone

sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put
this into a separate commit.


Please see the attached patches, then.


Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the code. I
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the other two
patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).


Works for me, but this bit in patch 0064 looks suspicious to me:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) == 
max_entries:


Shouldn't it rather be:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) >= 
max_entries:


?

The length of entries list should not exceed max_entries if size_limit 
is properly implemented. Therefore the list you get from execute() 
should not have more then max_entries entries. You shouldn't also be 
able to append a legacy entry to entries list if this check is the first 
thing you do.


That being said, >= could be used but then some popping of entries from 
entries list would be necessary. But it's perhaps safer to do, although 
if there's a bug, it won't be that obvious :)


--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Jan Cholasta]

On 17.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit'
attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get
everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit
is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries()
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.



Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of
currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit. However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put
this into a separate commit.


Please see the attached patches, then.


Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the code. I
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the other two
patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).


Works for me, but this bit in patch 0064 looks suspicious to me:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) == max_entries:

Shouldn't it rather be:

+if max_entries > 0 and len(entries) >= max_entries:

?

--
Jan Cholasta

--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Stanislav Laznicka]

On 08/11/2016 02:59 PM, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question 
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the 
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or 
just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit' 
attribute of

ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get 
everything

anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit 
is not

set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries() 
should be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.




Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of 
currently

loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit. However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put 
this into a separate commit.



Please see the attached patches, then.

Self-NACK, with Honza's help I found there was a mistake in the code. I 
also found an off-by-one bug which I hope I could stick to the other two 
patches (attaching only the modified and new patches).
From a0b900321fd0bcb9d93f9e558f48af6854e853df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stanislav Laznicka 
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:09:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fix permission_find fail on low search size limit

permission_find() method would have failed if size_limit in config is too
small caused by a search in post_callback. This search should also
respect the passed sizelimit or the sizelimit from ipa config if no
sizelimit is passed.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640
---
 ipaserver/plugins/permission.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipaserver/plugins/permission.py b/ipaserver/plugins/permission.py
index 830773ae7a09f0197da702e4ec31b0b58f1214dd..f11f32fe75abe79afd975f20a17d7074d7fdaf76 100644
--- a/ipaserver/plugins/permission.py
+++ b/ipaserver/plugins/permission.py
@@ -1305,10 +1305,10 @@ class permission_find(baseldap.LDAPSearch):
 if options.get('all'):
 attrs_list.append('*')
 try:
-legacy_entries = ldap.get_entries(
+(legacy_entries, truncated) = ldap.find_entries(
 base_dn=DN(self.obj.container_dn, self.api.env.basedn),
 filter=ldap.combine_filters(filters, rules=ldap.MATCH_ALL),
-attrs_list=attrs_list)
+attrs_list=attrs_list, size_limit=max_entries)
 # Retrieve the root 

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Stanislav Laznicka]

On 08/11/2016 07:49 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question 
in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the 
system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or 
just a

few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit' attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit 
is not

set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries() should 
be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.




Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit. However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put 
this into a separate commit.



Please see the attached patches, then.

From 75d8cf9c3708b68c9b3a9ba999b3d034b1ddc33a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stanislav Laznicka 
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:08:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Make get_entries() not ignore its limit arguments

get_entries() wouldn't pass some arguments deeper to find_entries()
function it wraps. This would cause unexpected behavior in some
cases throughout the framework where specific (non-)limitations
are expected.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640
---
 ipapython/ipaldap.py | 6 --
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipapython/ipaldap.py b/ipapython/ipaldap.py
index 704e71a9471c27430328a8c7c6a319aa72a9d482..a3f0a5668616f66ba744c336832064269882eb8b 100644
--- a/ipapython/ipaldap.py
+++ b/ipapython/ipaldap.py
@@ -1298,7 +1298,8 @@ class LDAPClient(object):
 for their description.
 """
 entries, truncated = self.find_entries(
-base_dn=base_dn, scope=scope, filter=filter, attrs_list=attrs_list)
+base_dn=base_dn, scope=scope, filter=filter, attrs_list=attrs_list,
+**kwargs)
 try:
 self.handle_truncated_result(truncated)
 except errors.LimitsExceeded as e:
@@ -1313,7 +1314,8 @@ class LDAPClient(object):
 
 def find_entries(self, filter=None, attrs_list=None, base_dn=None,
  scope=ldap.SCOPE_SUBTREE, time_limit=None,
- size_limit=None, search_refs=False, paged_search=False):
+ size_limit=None, search_refs=False, paged_search=False,
+ **kwargs):
 """
 Return a list of entries and indication of whether the results were
 

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Jan Cholasta]

On 2.8.2016 13:47, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit' attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.



One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause problems
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


I see. This is *not* intentional, the **kwargs of get_entries() should 
be passed to find_entries(). This definitely needs to be fixed.




Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of currently
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit.  However,
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than ignoring
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if someone
sees fit.



Right. Anyway, this is a different issue than above, so please put this 
into a separate commit.


--
Jan Cholasta

--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Stanislav Laznicka]

On 07/19/2016 09:20 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit' attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is 
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is 
used. If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the 
hardcoded default (= unlimited) is used.




One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?
AFAIU it is desired that the search is unlimited. However, due to the 
fact that neither size_limit nor paged_search are passed from 
ldap2.get_entries() to ldap2.find_entries() (methods inherited from 
LDAPClient), only the number of records specified by 
ipaSearchRecordsLimit is returned. That could eventually cause problems 
should ipaSearchRecordsLimit be set to a low value as in the ticket.


Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound 
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command 
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the 
same size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size 
from the size limit after each search? Do you do something else with 
it? ... The answer is that it depends on the purpose of each 
individual LDAP search (like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to 
do unlimited search, otherwise the resulting entry would be 
incomplete), and fixing this accross the whole framework is a 
non-trivial task.


I do realize that the proposed fix for the permission plugin is not 
perfect, it would probably be better to subtract the number of currently 
loaded records from the sizelimit, although in the end the number of 
returned values will not be higher than the given size_limit.  However, 
it seems reasonable that if get_entries is passed a size limit, it 
should apply it over current ipaSearchRecordsLimit rather than ignoring 
it. Then, any use of get_entries could be fixed accordingly if someone 
sees fit.


--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0058] Make get_entries not ignore its size_limit argument

[Jan Cholasta]

Hi,

On 14.7.2016 14:36, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:

Hello,

This patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5640.

With not so much experience with the framework, it raises question in my
head whether ipaldap.get_entries is used properly throughout the system
- does it always assume that it gets ALL the requested entries or just a
few of those as configured by the 'ipaSearchRecordsLimit' attribute of
ipaConfig.etc which it actually gets?


That depends. If you call get_entries() on the ldap2 plugin (which is 
usually the case in the framework), then ipaSearchRecordsLimit is used. 
If you call it on some arbitrary LDAPClient instance, the hardcoded 
default (= unlimited) is used.




One spot that I know the get_entries method was definitely not used
properly before this patch is in the
baseldap.LDAPObject.get_memberindirect() method:

 692 result = self.backend.get_entries(
 693 self.api.env.basedn,
 694 filter=filter,
 695 attrs_list=['member'],
 696 size_limit=-1, # paged search will get everything
anyway
 697 paged_search=True)

which to me seems kind of important if the environment size_limit is not
set properly :) The patch does not fix the non-propagation of the
paged_search, though.


Why do you think size_limit is not used properly here?

Anyway, this ticket is not really easily fixable without more profound 
changes. Often, multiple LDAP searches are done during command 
execution. What do you do with the size limit then? Do you pass the same 
size limit to all the searches? Do you subtract the result size from the 
size limit after each search? Do you do something else with it? ... The 
answer is that it depends on the purpose of each individual LDAP search 
(like in get_memberindirect() above, we have to do unlimited search, 
otherwise the resulting entry would be incomplete), and fixing this 
accross the whole framework is a non-trivial task.


Honza

--
Jan Cholasta

--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code