Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 20, 2019. It is now read-only.

Document the Password-based Mechanisms Known Limitations #4283

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 20, 2018

Conversation

settermjd
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes

#4239.

@settermjd settermjd self-assigned this Jul 13, 2018
@settermjd settermjd requested a review from PVince81 July 13, 2018 09:34
Copy link
Contributor

@phil-davis phil-davis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Text looks and reads OK

As a result, there are three known limitations.
These are:

#. Directly sharing the storage or any its sub-folders will fail. They will not appear to the recipient, because the mount cannot be set up due to missing credentials.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

or any of its...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you clarify further?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just adding the word "of"


.. note:: **Enterprise Users Only**

The enterprise version has a mode called "Save in DB" where the credentials are saved, encrypted, in the database (via :doc:`the WND app <../../../enterprise/external_storage/windows-network-drive_configuration>`). In this mode, all of the above operations can work.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can work or will work ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

credentials are saved, encrypted, --> credentials are encrypted saved

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

-> credentials are saved in encrypted form

the latter sound a bit German 😉

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you are right... 🙈
Thanks for reviewing it

Known Limitations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please be aware that because of the way that credentials are stored in ownCloud, any operations must be performed by the logged-in mount owner, because credentials are not stored anywhere.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about: are stored in ownCloud --> are stored in ownCloud community version

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Q: is this at least true for personal shared mounts. Is it also true for admin shared mounts or is it the same?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this sentence sounds contradictory because first it talks about "the way that credentials are stored" then later it says "not stored anywhere"

the limitation exists for both admin and personal mounts where both have the "log-in credentials, save in session" option


#. Directly sharing the storage or any its sub-folders will fail. They will not appear to the recipient, because the mount cannot be set up due to missing credentials.
#. Any background task operating on the storage, such as background scanning.
#. Any :doc:`occ command <../configuration/server/occ_command>` that operates on the storage like occ files:scan will fail.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does fail mean that there will be a error message or does it just not do it without notifying the user.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good question. @PVince81, can you clarify?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On quick scan, the best that I can make out is that an exception will be thrown, dumping a stacktrace to the console.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@PVince81, @phil-davis can you clarify?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know and don't have a quick setup to try this out right now. How about changing to "will have no effect" which could mean any of "fail", "show an error" or "do nothing"

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have not tried this directly myself, so not confident to advise!

As a result, there are three known limitations.
These are:

#. Directly sharing the storage or any its sub-folders will fail. They will not appear to the recipient, because the mount cannot be set up due to missing credentials.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this affect federation?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@PVince81, @phil-davis can you clarify?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have not tried this directly myself, so not confident to advise words related to "local" and ""federated" sharing.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The sharing action doesn't fail. It will go through but the recipient will not see mounted.

Federated sharing is affected as well because it works on "public link share token" basis (or something similar) which itself doesn't contain the user's storage password, so the storage cannot be mounted either.

I've raised owncloud/core#32110 to hide the sharing option completely in the ext storage settings as it cannot work in such scenarios.

@settermjd
Copy link
Contributor Author

@PVince81 @phil-davis @mmattel any further feedback?

Copy link
Contributor

@PVince81 PVince81 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@PVince81 PVince81 merged commit 7106d85 into master Jul 20, 2018
@PVince81 PVince81 deleted the update-password-based-mechanisms branch July 20, 2018 16:27
@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

@settermjd please backport

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants