mit-krb5 and heimdal binaries
rpenny at samba.org
Mon Mar 20 10:35:47 UTC 2023
On 20/03/2023 10:12, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On ma, 20 maalis 2023, Rowland Penny via samba-technical wrote:
>> On 20/03/2023 08:39, Alexander Bokovoy via samba-technical wrote:
>>> On ma, 20 maalis 2023, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2023-03-19 at 09:29 +0200, Alexander Bokovoy via samba-
>>>> technical wrote:
>>>>> I would be against a blended build against both MIT Kerberos and
>>>>> Kerberos in a distribution. It is not going to bring you anything
>>>>> support wise.
>>>>> Andreas and I have submitted a talk to SambaXP about MIT
>>>>> Kerberos/Heimdal Kerberos-based Samba AD DC configurations, where
>>>>> stand against each other and what are perspectives. In short, both
>>>>> unique features that do not exist in the other variant and both are
>>>>> close to being production-ready. We want to change the status for MIT
>>>>> Kerberos-based build from experimental to production. Effectively,
>>>>> actual decision for a version shipped in a particular distribution
>>>>> need to be made by that distribution, of course.
>>>>> Distributions need to take into account security releases, as Rowland
>>>>> has pointed out as well. However, from my Fedora and RHEL experience,
>>>>> this is not a problem with MIT Kerberos -- certainly not more than
>>>>> Heimdal. It is pretty much a coordination question and I believe we
>>>>> very good coordination on that front with MIT Kerberos and
>>>>> If I was in Samba AD support for production deployments, I'd probably
>>>>> go with deploying DCs in a containerized image way to isolate
>>>>> from the rest of the OS. There are few images already that provide
>>>>> setup:  was presented at SambaXP by Michael Adam and other folks
>>>>> from IBM Storage,  is older and also active one.
>>>> Regarding the support and stability of a Samba AD Deployment based on
>>>> MIT Kerberos, given the advances in testing over the past few years, I
>>>> have, in 2023, no major concerns. The features that are provided work
>>>> and can be expected to operate in production without concern.
>>>> The "experimental" designation is no longer correct, but it is not
>>>> clear to me what different word we should apply instead, the closest I
>>>> can come to is "unsupported".
>>> Thanks. It is not 'unsupported', for sure, same way as linking against
>>> system-built Heimdal Kerberos library is not considered 'unsupported'.
>>> What should, perhaps, be defined is a matrix of features that are
>>> expected to work. If somebody files a bug against Fedora with Samba
>>> AD/MIT build or Samba upstream with a configuration that is expected to
>>> work, it will be investigated and worked on -- pretty much like we
>>> already do for years. This is definitely not an 'unsupported' state.
>>> Given that Samba Team as the upstream project does not provide
>>> commercial support in itself, this is best we do already. Commercial
>>> support is provided by separate entities and I don't see why MIT
>>> Kerberos build should be treated otherwise.
>>> Right now we don't have this formalized in any in-tree document. The
>>> wiki page says
>>> Samba as an AD DC only supports:
>>> - The integrated LDAP server as AD back end. For details, see the
>>> frequently asked question (FAQ) Does Samba AD DCs Support OpenLDAP or
>>> Other LDAP Servers as Back End?
>>> - The Heimdal Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC).
>>> Samba provides experimental support for the MIT Kerberos KDC provided
>>> by your operating system if you run Samba 4.7 or later and has been
>>> built using the --with-system-mitkrb5 option. In other cases Samba
>>> uses the Heimdal KDC included in Samba. For further details about
>>> Samba using the MIT KDC, and why it is experimental see Running a
>>> Samba AD DC with MIT Kerberos KDC.
>>> From this you don't get any state for system-provided Heimdal Kerberos
>>> build as well. There are also no guidelines for distribution maintainers.
>>> All this being said purely because we have a space for improvement, not
>>> as a critique only. I can prepare a draft that describes guidelines to
>>> distribution maintainers.
>>>> Just as a distribution can and will ship a pre-release version of some
>>>> software, to meet that distributions overall goals, Red Hat is free to
>>>> ship the "experimental" MIT-based Samba AD DC, and provide the security
>>>> support (in particular) for that configuration to its users. Red Hat
>>>> has the resources and ability to coordinate the release of patched
>>>> Samba and a patched MIT Kerberos simultaneously if required, for
>>> Can we please stop assigning it all to 'Red Hat'? Same way as Canonical
>>> or Catalyst IT are not driving decisions how Debian packaging of Samba
>>> is done, Red Hat as a company is not involved in deciding Fedora's
>>> packaging of Samba. Individuals are. I would prefer if our role would
>>> be reflected in these discussions.
>>>> However, things are different upstream. I would suggest that, while
>>>> vendoring has well documented costs (as seen when we got stuck on 'old
>>>> Heimdal'), the choice to embed an copy of Heimdal has been a
>>>> significant advantage to upstream Samba.
>>> So this is an entirely different discussion. You might want to create a
>>> separate thread about it.
>>> I am not even contesting the fact that embedded Heimdal usage is there.
>>> When Tridge started Samba 4 work two decades ago, we did not have many
>>> important elements of a rapid collaboration culture we have today. At
>>> that point it was great that we've got help from Love Astrand to make
>>> Heimdal embeddable and used that to iterate quickly Kerberos
>>> interoperability with Microsoft's Active Directory. At that point both
>>> Heimdal and MIT Kerberos were a lot less active upstreams with regards
>>> to advancing faster that goal. An irony and drama of git invention
>>> should also not be forgotten.
>>> It is normal for many upstreams to be able to build against different
>>> versions or implementations of libraries they depend on. Sure, something
>>> is marked as the primary one -- in case of Samba AD I would argue that
>>> the primary supported variant is 'Samba AD built against an embedded
>>> Heimdal Kerberos version'. However, this does not automatically
>>> disqualify 'Samba AD built against a system-provided MIT Kerberos
>>> version' or 'Samba AD built against a system-provided Heimdal Kerberos
>>> version'. Making them supported is a task of the system provider
>>> together with upstream -- to ensure that the specific target is viable
>>> and usable. This is what we do with MIT build in Fedora since 2017 and
>>> will do have a better standing once Fedora 39 is out due to krb5 1.20+
>>>> As a current example, this is allowing Claims support to be added, with
>>>> the KDC-side changes (to link the device and user) recorded in
>>>> lorikeet-heimdal and proposed upstream but not required to be accepted
>>>> at the time that the patches land in Samba.
>>> Is this referencing a work being tracked in
>>>> Likewise, security releases, which have been a significant burden of
>>>> late, can be made from Samba master and directly consumed by our users.
>>> Coordinating between upstreams is the only reasonable way going forward.
>>> There is no way we wouldn't get burned out from vendoring-in everything.
>>> It may work from time to time but a real answer is to build an ecosystem
>>> around the area and deal with it altogether.
>>>> I'm very sorry I won't be at SambaXP this year, as I would very much
>>>> like to be part of the conversation around any changes we make here.
>>>> It is not that the the current situation is ideal, but it has come with
>>>> a number of significant advantages.
>>> My aim is to not change that but rather enable what has been developed
>>> over years. Current state of claiming 'experimental' has lived itself
>>> out, in my opinion.
>>>> In both cases the development process includes tests, and these tests
>>>> are at least initially marked as knownfail for MIT Kerberos. This is
>>>> not as dire as it seems, because more then 50% of a Samba development
>>>> task is tests, those supporting the MIT KDC are presented with a full
>>>> set of tests and a list of know failures the address.
>>> Indeed. For the record, current set of tests not supported by
>>> --with-system-mitkrb5 build:
>>> $ cat selftest/skip_mit_kdc
>>> # We do not support RODC yet
>>> $ cat selftest/knownfail_mit_kdc_1_20
>>> # FAST tests
>>> # https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/1225#issuecomment-996418770
>>> # Claims tests
>>> # Group tests
>>> Out of those the FAST tests should be fixed already. This leaves us with
>>> SID compression. Claims work is being done by Joseph right now for
>>> Heimdal KDC. As with the rest, my hope we can reuse a lot of this great
>>> work, like we did in past. SID compression is something I was planning
>>> to look at for MIT Kerberos myself.
>>>> However that knownfail listing is the limit that the developers
>>>> providing new Samba AD features and providing the security support are
>>>> expected to provide.
>>>> This last point is critical, as only one of these Kerberos
>>>> implementations is funded, and currently the Kerberos distribution that
>>>> the developers involved are funded to provide is Heimdal.
>>>> This choice may of course change in the future, but as far as I see it
>>>> it will always be one or the other.
>>> So far, there is no real aim to drop one Kerberos implementation
>>> upstream and stick to the other one. There is a good distributed effort
>>> to cover both Heimdal and MIT Kerberos across multiple free software
>>> directory services. The most important part is that this effort is used
>>> to improve Kerberos testability and security everywhere, and this means
>>> also a better base for Samba AD users.
>> I think what is being said here is, the use of MIT is no longer
>> experimental, it mainly works, but with a few exceptions when compared with
>> Heimdal. The use of MIT with a Samba AD DC is only being supported by Fedora
>> at this point in time.
> Apart from the last sentence. At this moment Samba AD/MIT Kerberos is
> available in Fedora 27+, OpenSUSE 16+, ALT Linux, and Gentoo. I might
> have even missed something. So it is more than just one distribution and
> this is also one of reasons why we keep the details about MIT Kerberos
> build in the wiki -- to share documentation across multiple
You missed Slackware.
The problem isn't that there is documentation about MIT in the wiki, it
is that the documentation appears to be out of date.
>> If the above is true, then it would seem to have been true for quite
>> sometime, so why hasn't the Samba documentation been updated to reflect
>> this. If the documentation had been updated, then most of what was written
>> here yesterday, would never have been written (note: I am not pointing at
>> anyone in particular, we are all guilty of not updating the wiki and
>> documentation to a certain extent).
> The documentation about supported features/combinations of options is
> long overdue to be fixed. I will work on some of the fixes as a part of
> my SambaXP talk preparation.
>> As for pointing the finger at red-hat, well that is easy, they are the only
>> ones that went on record and said there will never be an AD DC.
>> The connection between Fedora and RHEL is interesting, Alexander basically
>> says (unless I am misunderstanding it again) that there is no connection
>> between red-hat and fedora, which is strange, because during the centos
>> debacle, I am sure red-hat claimed that fedora was upstream from RHEL.
> I think you might be lacking an understanding how a Linux distribution
> development works. For example, there is also an Amazon Linux 2023 which
> is too based on Fedora. It is a downstream, similar to how RHEL is
> downstream of Fedora. However, there are substantial differences in how
> packages get selected to all three of those and how they maintained.
> Here is a high level take from Fedora itself:
That actually seems to back up what I said, Fedora is upstream from RHEL
and is to a certain extent dependant on RHEL.
> Handy, last week's Amazon Linux 2023 anouncement has a nice explanation:
This all brings us back to the point that I am trying to make, the
documentation isn't up to date, which if it had been, we wouldn't be
here now, this is something you dealt with further above in this post.
> When looking for a base to serve as a starting point for Amazon Linux
> 2023, Fedora was the best choice. We found that Fedora’s core tenets
> (Freedom, Friends, Features, First) resonate well with our vision for
> Amazon Linux. However, Amazon Linux focuses on a long-term, stable OS
> for the cloud, which is a notable different release cycle and lifecycle
> than Fedora. Amazon Linux 2023 provides updated versions of open-source
> software, a larger variety of packages, and frequent releases.
> Amazon Linux 2023 isn’t directly comparable to any specific Fedora
> release. The Amazon Linux 2023 GA version includes components from
> Fedora 34, 35, and 36. Some of the components are the same as the
> components in Fedora, and some are modified. Other components more
> closely resemble the components in CentOS Stream 9 or were developed
> independently. The Amazon Linux kernel, on its side, is sourced from the
> long-term support options that are on kernel.org, chosen independently
> from the kernel provided by Fedora.
> Fedora gets a lot of contributions from thousands people. There is more
> than one sponsoring organization and a lot of interest from multiple
More information about the samba-technical