Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Preparations for launching cockpit-session via unix socket activation #21258

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

martinpitt
Copy link
Member

Broken out from #16808. That requires a few more rounds of review and has ideas for more cleanups. These are the cockpit-session JSON parser (which is a bit finnicky, but got reviewed a few rounds already), plus a few extra commits which I believe are not problematic. Let's get them out of the way.

Stop failing with "didn't receive expected authorize message", as that's
confusing -- the user did nothing wrong. Instead, silently exit
successfully, and let cockpit-ws handle the timeout.

This is mostly occurring when enabling Negotiate (kerberos)
authentication, and thus cockpit-ws always starts *two* cockpit-session
attempts (one for Negotiate, one for PAM), like in
TestIPA.testQualifiedUsers.
This makes it easier for callers to treat the reply as textual string.
The only remaining user is cockpit-session, where we will need this
behaviour in the following commit.
@martinpitt

This comment was marked as resolved.

@martinpitt martinpitt added the no-test For doc/workflow changes, or experiments which don't need a full CI run, label Nov 13, 2024
@martinpitt martinpitt force-pushed the session-prep branch 2 times, most recently from bba7277 to f5ce821 Compare November 13, 2024 06:19
@martinpitt martinpitt removed the request for review from allisonkarlitskaya November 13, 2024 06:19
We want to parse more fields than just "response" from the authorize message in
the message. So remove the very rigidly harcoded parsing in
`read_authorize_response()` and let it return the whole JSON string instead.
Add a new `get_authorize_key()` function that parses a single value from that,
and adjust the callers accordingly.

This is a very restricted parser to keep things simple: No spaces in the
structure, and no escaping. We can assume all that as cockpit-ws sends
very controlled messages, and '"' isn't used in base64 values. In the
worst case we get a truncated value, which will just fail
authentication.

Localize some variables while we are at it.
Drop the duplicated (but not identical!) implementation of
`read_authorize_response()` and use the real implementation.
Run socket-activated cockpit-session with correct context. By default it
is `init_t`, but that will produce a memfd with the wrong permissions, which
the session cannot read.

Allow cockpit-ws to connect to /run/cockpit/session.

Allow restricted user_t and sysadm_t sessions to communicate (but not
connect) to cockpit-ws through the session unix socket. (Covered by
TestLogin.testSELinuxRestrictedUser)
…codes

cockpit-session exits with 5 on authentication failures, including
`authentication-unavailable`; or with 127 on authentication timeouts.
These aren't a reason to mark the unit as failed.
The point of this is really to determine the cgroup of our caller, i.e.
the cockpit-ws process. With [email protected] this is different
than cockpit-session's own cgroup. Rename the variables to clarify this.
If cockpit-ws directly spawns cockpit-session, it can process the 127
exit code by itself. But there is no exit code if that happens via unix
socket. Check this condition explicitly and report `no-cockpit` via the
protocol.

This triggers a more specific error path in cockpit-ws and the login
page, adjust TestConnection.testBasic accordingly.
The test idles on the login page for more than the 60s authorize
timeout. When running cockpit-session via unix socket, this causes some
unsightly "session timed out during authentication" messages. This ought
to be handled better in cockpit-ws, but for the time being ignore these
messages.
@martinpitt martinpitt removed the no-test For doc/workflow changes, or experiments which don't need a full CI run, label Nov 13, 2024
@martinpitt martinpitt marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2024 08:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant