Open Stack

Hi German,

Once again, we are not talking about a real delete of a cert in whatever
cert storage.

The problem we are trying to resolve is, even the lbaas is deleted, users
still see the lbaas is using the cert in Barbican.
We didn't call the deregister logic during lbaas deletion.

Best,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Jiahao Liang (Frankie) <
gzliangjiahao at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> The reason Barbican cert container has a property called consumer. The
> definition is as following:
>
>> What is a Consumer?
>>
>>
>>> A consumer is a way to register as an interested party for a container.
>>> All of the registered consumers can be viewed by performing a GET on the
>>> {container_ref}/consumers. The idea being that before a container is
>>> deleted all consumers should be notified of the delete.
>>
>>
> When we create a Terminated_HTTPS listener in lbaas, we register the lbaas
> as one of the consumers of corresponding cert container.
>
> But when we delete the listener/lb, we didn't deregister/revert the
> consumer registration.
> This deregister/revert is actually what delete_cert() do for Barbican
> cert_manager in neutron_lbaas, NOT a real delete.
>
> My suggestion was we need to add this deregister/revert procedure.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best,
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Andrey Grebennikov <
> agrebennikov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Frankie,
>>
>> What is the reason why the cert has to be deleted on the balancer
>> deletion?
>> The entire workflow, if I'm not mistaken, is to first work with Barbican
>> API in order to create the cert bundle. And technically it is not yet
>> connected to anything else.
>> After that you create the balancer, specifying the link to where the cert
>> bundle is.
>> From this perspective, why one should expect the cert bundle to be
>> deleted?
>>
>> For me personally it is the same as deletion of the image automatically
>> once the instance got deleted :/
>>
>> Sorry if I'm missing the context.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Adam Harwell <flux.adam at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I believe it was because we intended to leave it up to the
>>> specific certificate manager to determine what needs to be done -- we are
>>> treating it as a delete, and if the cert manager wants to do a true delete,
>>> they can. I'll agree the verb is not perfectly clear, but the driver author
>>> should make sure the correct action is taken regardless of the function
>>> name.
>>>
>>> It's possible we should just rename the function to something like
>>> "unget_cert", which sounds a bit nonsensical but is possibly still clearer.
>>> I remember at the time I wrote this being frustrated with trying to name
>>> the function and wanting to just move on. T_T
>>>
>>>    --Adam (rm_work)
>>>
>>> PS: Did we remove the local cert manager yet? Now I need to check... I
>>> hope so, because it's not actually usable, nor can it be without API
>>> modifications (which we discussed but never actually implemented or even
>>> fully agreed on).
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 17:50 Jiahao Liang (Frankie) <
>>> gzliangjiahao at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks rm_work.
>>>>
>>>> I also notice something need to be handled properly.
>>>>
>>>> For barbican, the delete_cert() only deregisters the cert without
>>>> actually delete it. That's safe for us to call during
>>>> delete_listener()/delete_loadbalancer().
>>>>
>>>> But if the user uses other cert_manager by any chance, say the
>>>> local_cert_manager, the same delete_cert() method will do a real delete of
>>>> the cert.
>>>>
>>>> Probably we need to implement register_consumer()/remove_consumer()
>>>> method for cert_manager and call them in neutron_lbaas as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:48 Adam Harwell <flux.adam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've got this on my list of things to look at -- I don't know if it was
>>>> you I was talking with on IRC the other day about this issue, but I'm
>>>> definitely aware of it. As soon as we are past the Ocata feature freeze
>>>> crunch, I'll take a closer look.
>>>>
>>>> My gut says that we should be calling the delete (which is not a real
>>>> delete) when the LB is deleted, and not doing so is a bug, but I'll need to
>>>> double check the logic as it has been a while since I touched this.
>>>>
>>>>     --Adam (rm_work)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017, 18:38 Jiahao Liang (Frankie) <
>>>> gzliangjiahao at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi community,
>>>>
>>>> I created a loadbalancer with a listener with protocol as
>>>> "TERMINATED_HTTPS" and specify --default-tls-container-ref with a ref of
>>>> secret container from Barbican.
>>>> However, after I deleted the listener, the lbaas wasn't removed from
>>>> barbican container consumer list.
>>>>
>>>> $openstack secret container get http://192.168.20.24:9311/v1/c
>>>> ontainers/453e8905-d42b-43bd-9947-50e3acf499f4
>>>> +----------------+------------------------------------------
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> | Field          | Value
>>>>                                                 |
>>>> +----------------+------------------------------------------
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> | Container href | http://192.168.20.24:9311/v1/c
>>>> ontainers/453e8905-d42b-43bd-9947-50e3acf499f4                        |
>>>> | Name           | tls_container2
>>>>                                                |
>>>> | Created        | 2017-01-19 12:44:07+00:00
>>>>                                                 |
>>>> | Status         | ACTIVE
>>>>                                                |
>>>> | Type           | certificate
>>>>                                                 |
>>>> | Certificate    | http://192.168.20.24:9311/v1/s
>>>> ecrets/bfc2bf01-0f23-4105-bf09-c75839b6b4cb                           |
>>>> | Intermediates  | None
>>>>                                                |
>>>> | Private Key    | http://192.168.20.24:9311/v1/s
>>>> ecrets/c85d150e-ec84-42e0-a65f-9c9ec19767e1                           |
>>>> | PK Passphrase  | None
>>>>                                                |
>>>> | *Consumers      | {u'URL':
>>>> u'lbaas://RegionOne/loadbalancer/5e7768b9-7aa9-4146-8a71-6291353b447e',
>>>> u'name': u'lbaas'}*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I went through the neutron-lbaas code base. We did register consumer
>>>> during the creation of "TERMINATED_HTTPS" listener in [1]. But we somehow
>>>> doesn't deregister it during the deletion in [1]:
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron-lbaas/blob/stable/
>>>> mitaka/neutron_lbaas/services/loadbalancer/plugin.py#L642
>>>> get_cert() register lbaas as a consumer for barbican cert_manager.  (
>>>> https://github.com/openstack/neutron-lbaas/blob/stable/mit
>>>> aka/neutron_lbaas/common/cert_manager/barbican_cert_manager.py#L177)
>>>> [2]: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-lbaas/blob/stable/
>>>> mitaka/neutron_lbaas/services/loadbalancer/plugin.py#L805
>>>> we probably need to call delete_cert from barbican cert_manager to
>>>> remove the consumer. (https://github.com/openstack/
>>>> neutron-lbaas/blob/stable/mitaka/neutron_lbaas/common/cert_m
>>>> anager/barbican_cert_manager.py#L187)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My questions are:
>>>> 1. is that a bug?
>>>> 2. or is it a intentional design letting the vendor driver to handle
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> It looks more like a bug to me.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Jiahao
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *梁嘉豪/Jiahao LIANG (Frankie)     *
>>>> Email: gzliangjiahao at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> ______________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.op
>>>> enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> ______________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.op
>>>> enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> ______________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.op
>>>> enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> ______________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.op
>>> enstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrey Grebennikov
>> Principal Deployment Engineer
>> Mirantis Inc, Austin TX
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *梁嘉豪/Jiahao LIANG (Frankie)     *
> Email: gzliangjiahao at gmail.com
>
>


-- 

*梁嘉豪/Jiahao LIANG (Frankie)     *
Email: gzliangjiahao at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170127/271b5bf6/attachment-0001.html>