Re: Signature V2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:42 AM, jan hugo prins <jprins@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have been able to reproduce the error and create a debug log from the
> failure.
> I can't post the debug log here because there is sensitive information
> in the debug log like access keys etc.
> Where can I send this log for analysis? And who is able to have a look
> at this?

I can't do anything useful with this, but you can upload the log with
ceph-post-file and it will only be accessible to upstream Ceph devs.
Then create a ticket under the RGW project at tracker.ceph.com
pointing to the files (ceph-post-file will give you a UUID).
-Greg

> A small part of the debug log without stripped of sensitive information:
>
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864658 7ff155ffb700 10 -----------------------------
> Verifying signatures
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864659 7ff155ffb700 10 Signature     =
> abbeb6af798b2aad58cd398491698f863253f3859d22b4c9558cc808159d256d
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864660 7ff155ffb700 10 New Signature =
> e13d83bcd1f52103e9056add844e0037accb71436faee1a3e0048dd6c25cd4b6
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864661 7ff155ffb700 10 -----------------------------
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864664 7ff155ffb700 20 delayed aws4 auth failed
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864674 7ff155ffb700  2 req 624:0.000642:s3:PUT
> /Photos/Options/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/180x102.jpg:put_obj:completing
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864749 7ff155ffb700  2 req 624:0.000717:s3:PUT
> /Photos/Options/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/180x102.jpg:put_obj:op status=-2027
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864757 7ff155ffb700  2 req 624:0.000726:s3:PUT
> /Photos/Options/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/180x102.jpg:put_obj:http status=403
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864762 7ff155ffb700  1 ====== req done
> req=0x7ff155ff5710 op status=-2027 http_status=403 ======
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864776 7ff155ffb700 20 process_request() returned -2027
> 2016-08-18 17:26:33.864801 7ff155ffb700  1 civetweb: 0x7ff1f8003e80:
> 192.168.2.59 - - [18/Aug/2016:17:26:33 +0200] "PUT
> /Photos/Options/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/180x102.jpg HTTP/1.1" 403 0 - -
>
>
> Jan Hugo Prins
>
>
> On 08/18/2016 01:32 PM, jan hugo prins wrote:
>> did some more searching and according to some info I found RGW should
>> support V4 signatures.
>>
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10333
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11858
>>
>> The fact that everyone still modifies s3cmd to use Version 2 Signatures
>> suggests to me that we have a bug in this code.
>>
>> If I use V4 signatures most of my requests work fine, but some requests
>> fail on a signature error.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jan Hugo Prins
>>
>>
>> On 08/18/2016 12:46 PM, jan hugo prins wrote:
>>> Hi everyone.
>>>
>>> To connect to my S3 gateways using s3cmd I had to set the option
>>> signature_v2 in my s3cfg to true.
>>> If I didn't do that I would get Signature mismatch errors and this seems
>>> to be because Amazon uses Signature version 4 while the S3 gateway of
>>> Ceph only supports Signature Version 2.
>>>
>>> Now I see the following error in a Jave project we are building that
>>> should talk to S3.
>>>
>>> Aug 18, 2016 12:12:38 PM org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve
>>> invoke
>>> SEVERE: Servlet.service() for servlet [Default] in context with path
>>> [/VehicleData] threw exception
>>> com.betterbe.vd.web.servlet.LsExceptionWrapper: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> caused: com.amazonaws.services.s3.model.AmazonS3Exception: null
>>> (Service: Amazon S3; Status Code: 400; Error Code:
>>> XAmzContentSHA256Mismatch; Request ID:
>>> tx000000000000000002cc6-0057b58a15-25bba-default), S3 Extended Request
>>> ID: 25bba-default-default
>>>         at
>>> com.betterbe.vd.web.dataset.requesthandler.DatasetRequestHandler.handle(DatasetRequestHandler.java:262)
>>>         at com.betterbe.vd.web.servlet.Servlet.handler(Servlet.java:141)
>>>         at com.betterbe.vd.web.servlet.Servlet.doPost(Servlet.java:110)
>>>         at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:646)
>>>
>>> To me this looks a bit the same, though I'm not a Java developer.
>>> Am I correct, and if so, can I tell the Java S3 client to use Version 2
>>> signatures?
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
>
> Jan Hugo Prins
> Infra and Isilon storage consultant
>
> Better.be B.V.
> Auke Vleerstraat 140 E | 7547 AN Enschede | KvK 08097527
> T +31 (0) 53 48 00 694 | M +31 (0)6 26 358 951
> jprins@xxxxxxxxxxxx | www.betterbe.com
>
> This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not
> be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than
> the addressee(s). Better.be B.V. rules out any and every liability
> resulting from any electronic transmission.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux