-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Encryption key storage error when deleting user #26935
Comments
Now I have the feeling that keys deletion itself is overkill in most scenarios when the keys are contained in the home folder. It only makes sense to do extra deletion when keys are stored separately. But then why not do it in the pre delete hook then ? I see that trashbin clearing also operates there. |
Pfff, I just tried in OC 9.1.3 with "change-key-storage-root" and the keys are also not deleted properly. Well, actually it does delete the public key of the user but not the private key. And the file keys also remain. Ok, so that will be a different issue: #26936. So the goal in this issue here is to bring the behavior back to what it was before to eliminate the regression and annoying log messages. |
Fix for the alternate key root case here: #26937 Still need to work on the other case, maybe I'll just make it use the pre delete hook. |
Fix is here: #26938 (preDelete hook approach) |
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Steps
Expected result
No errors in log, user's keys properly deleted.
Actual result
Errors in log, user's key properly deleted indirectly through the deletion of the home.
Same result with an alternative home.
However when using an alternative root for the keys (
occ encryption:change-key-storage-root enckeys
), the keys are NOT deleted properly because that exception makes it skip key deletion within the hook.Versions
master a4883ae, likely introduced by #26917
Possible approaches
@SergioBertolinSG this is the issue you observed in #26844 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: