On December 22, 2017 at 9:16 PM Mark Moseley <moseleymark@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:18 AM, <aki.tuomi@dovecot.fi> wrote:
On December 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM Mark Moseley <moseleymark@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi@dovecot.fi> wrote:
On December 22, 2017 at 6:43 AM Mark Moseley <moseleymark@gmail.com> wrote:
- Is there an appropriate way to return data with spaces in it (or presumably other non-alphanum chars. My quota name had a space in
which somehow got interpreted as 'yes' , i.e.:
imap: Error: Failed to initialize quota: Invalid quota root quota: Unknown quota backend: yes
I simply changed the space to an underscore as a workaround, but I'm curious if there's a better way. I tried various quoting without success. Didn't try escaping yet.
- Instead of string, return a key value table. you can have spaces in values.
Does this work for auth_passdb_lookup too, or just auth_userdb_lookup? I've been returning a table with auth_userdb_lookup just fine. But when I
using it with passdb (and despite being very very sure that a 'password' key exists in the table I'm returning from auth_passdb_lookup() -- I'm logging it one line above the return), the passdb auth fails with
log
entry:
Dec 21 23:29:22 auth-worker(7779): Info: lua(test1@test.com,10.20.103.32,<dSvLQuZg+uIKFGcg>): No password returned (and no nopassword)
I guess it's not seeing the password key in the table I'm returning. If I return a concat'd string ("password=... user=...") from auth_passdb_lookup(), it works just fine.
I was also curious if there's a way to pass info between auth_userdb_lookup and auth_passdb_lookup. I was trying to use a table with auth_passdb_lookup() so I could take advantage of prefetch and
it, try this thought
if auth_passdb_lookup didn't take a table, I could stash data away and
that then
un-stash it in auth_userdb_lookup
Thanks!
Yeah, this is a bug we have fixed =)
https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/c86575ac9776d0995355d03719c82e 7ceac802e6#diff-83374eeaee91d90e848390ba3c7b264a
I'm on rc1, so I appear to already have that git commit (as part of rc1).
# /usr/sbin/dovecot --version 2.3.0.rc1 (12aba5948)
For testing this, I tried replacing my passdb lookup with this:
function auth_passdb_lookup(req) passdb_table = {} passdb_table[ 'password' ] = 'test' passdb_table[ 'user' ] = 'test1@test.com'
return dovecot.auth.PASSDB_RESULT_OK, passdb_tableend
and still get:
Dec 22 01:17:17 auth-worker(9711): Info: lua(test1@test.com,10.20.103.32,<f2O5xOdgFoYKFGcg>): No password returned (and no nopassword)
Replacing that return statement with this:
return dovecot.auth.PASSDB_RESULT_OK, 'password=test user=test1@test.com '
authenticates successfully.
Fixed in https://github.com/dovecot/core/commit/ e5fb6b3b7d4e79475b451823ea6c0a02955ba06b
Works like a charm now, thanks!
As a matter of 'best practices', in my current iteration of Lua auth, I moved all my lookups to passdb (thus yesterday's emails to the list), so that it could be used with prefetch. Belatedly realizing that LMTP doesn't touch passdb, I rewrote the userdb lookup to call the same passdb lookup (which only happens for non-passdb/prefetch things) and then it copies the return table (but strips the 'userdb_' prefix). It's all working currently. BUT, does that sound sane? Or is there some gotcha I'm heading towards (yes, I realize the question is a bit vague -- just looking for very general "No, don't do that").
Sounds ok to me.
I'm curious too if I can set vars in the passdb lookup and then access then in userdb. Or is it random which auth-worker will handle the userdb lookup, relative to which one handled the passdb lookup? I tried dropping things in the req.userdb table in the passdb phase, but it was unset during the userdb phase.
The best way is to export userdb_variables from passdb lookup. The userdb table itself is currently read-only, but yeah, it might be a good idea actually to support writing like this at some point.
Aki