On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:49:22AM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> + err = virGetLastError();
> >> + if (err && strstr(err->message,
> >> + _("no agent is available to authenticate"))) {
> >
> >> + if (!pkagent) {
> >> + if (!(pkagent = virPolkitAgentCreate()))
> >> + goto cleanup;
> >> + }
> >> + agentstart++;
> >> + } else if (err && strstr(err->message, _("authentication failed:"))) {
> >
> > String matching is pretty unpleasant. I think we can match on
> > err->domain == VIR_FROM_POLKIT && err->code == VIR_ERR_AUTH_FAILED
> > for this.
> >
>
> Using VIR_ERR_AUTH_FAILED I cannot distinguish between the failure of
> available agent or access denied by policy from virPolkitCheckAuth.
> Adjusting what virPolkitCheckAuth returns means more code modification
> since the assumption is -2 has 3 possible issues of which 2 currently
> are tested by a err->message comparison.
My point is that you don't actually need to distinguish those two
cases directly. You can do this:
if (err && err->code == VIR_FROM_POLKIT && err->code == VIR_ER_AUTH_FAILED) {
if (!virDBusIsServiceRegistered(...polkit...)) {
....start agent...
}
....retry auth...
}
> I would think in this case, I wouldn't want to create a text agent if
> access is denied by policy. So should I bite the bullet and adjust the
> return value checking? Or should I add a new error code
> "VIR_ERR_AUTH_DENY" and likewise adjust the code/tests to use that
> rather than the current string comparisons.
It is actually generally bad security practice to tell users /why/ auth
failed - that we return different error messages for these two cases
is probably something we should in fact fix.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list