We have recently upgraded from WebLogic Portal 9.2.3 to 10.3.5. We have a JackRabbit repository connected through the Day Software JSR-170 VCR-JCR provider. This has all worked perfectly fine on 9.2.3, but on 10.3.5 we are getting a IllegalMonitorStateException when we try to retrieve content. We have out own facade on top of JackRabbit, that implements the JCR-170. Here is the debug out from the server:
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.initializeSessionState():1215] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2b70161: (re)initializing all repo sessions for username: <WLS Kernel>
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.initializeSessionState():1215] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2bf2311: (re)initializing all repo sessions for username: <WLS Kernel>
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.initializeSessionState():1215] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2fa5952: (re)initializing all repo sessions for username: <anonymous>
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.ensureConnectedToRepository():801] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2fa5952: no session found for repoName=indhold; need to connect
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.ensureConnectedToRepository():821] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2fa5952: connect write lock acquired for repoName=indhold
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.connectToRepository():875] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2fa5952: connecting to repositoryName= indhold
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.getRepositoryClass():1503] invoking Class.forName(repoClassName)
[com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.getRepository():1403] com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate#2fa5952: Ticket authentication error for: indhold java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$Sync.tryReleaseShared(ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:363)
at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.releaseShared(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1317)
at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$ReadLock.unlock(ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:745)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.getRepositoryClass(RepositoryManagerDelegate.java:1537)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.getRepository(RepositoryManagerDelegate.java:1327)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.connectToRepository(RepositoryManagerDelegate.java:893)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.ensureConnectedToRepository(RepositoryManagerDelegate.java:832)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryManagerDelegate.connect(RepositoryManagerDelegate.java:1160)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.delegate.RepositoryHelper.checkCapability(RepositoryHelper.java:759)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.CapabilityManagerImpl.checkRepositoryCapability(CapabilityManagerImpl.java:57)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.ManagerImplCapabilityHelper.checkCapability(ManagerImplCapabilityHelper.java:80)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.ManagerImplCapabilityHelper.verifyCapability(ManagerImplCapabilityHelper.java:54)
at com.bea.content.federated.internal.NodeManagerImpl.getNode(NodeManagerImpl.java:432)
at dk.skat.portal.front.helper.ContentHelper.getNode(ContentHelper.java:1591)
It seems that authenticationn fails, but if I try to set a break-point in the login methods in the repository (our Facade, which doesn't do any authentication challenge, but just wraps JackRabbit, and logs in the same user - "default" - for all access), we are never getting called. Setting the username and password on the Manage Repositories page, doesn't seem to have any effect.
If I on the other hand go to Portal Administration Console, and try to manage or browse the repository, everything works fine, and the login methods are actually called, and the server connects fine to the repository.
This seems very strange. In cetain cases (that happens to happen randomly, we can get the server to all of a sudden get to the repository, but on restart of the server, it is again back to failing).
I've tried to set username/password for the repository to the weblogic user, but that doesn't seem to have any effect, I still get the error.
Furthermore when I've been into the PAC, and logs out, closes the browser, reopen the browser or a completely different browser, the entering of PAC seems to activate the repository to become online (though this is not stable or desired).
Please advice, if there is a bug in WebLogic (it seems it tries to unlock() the ReadLock too many times, resulting in the mentioned exception - should it at all fail on that exception??, Should the lock-count be checked before unlocking?), or if w are doing anything wrong? I can read that there is a known bug in the eclipse tooling for 10.3.5 about exactly this error.
Furthermore, we didn't seem to have any trouble in 9.2.3, what changed in 10.3.5?
Had same issue, found solution here https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10984645
In short, it is a product bug, request following patch from Oracle:
WLP Version: 10.3.5
Patch Name/Patch Number/Bug Number: 14377862
Smart Update Patch ID: HPV8
Related
I am behind an enterprise firewall, have checked "Auto-detect proxy settings" in System Settings -> HTTP Proxy. I entered the correct credentials and checked "Remember". I know the credentials are correct, as I am able, for example, to download and install plugins.
However, IntelliJ keeps asking me periodically to re-enter the proxy credentials. Why?
For me the solution was changing proxy setting to "No Proxy" from "Auto-detect".
Idea retrieves proxy settings anyway from Windows.
Version:2019.3
Raising a case they said the SSL certificate gets replaced via the proxy.
I was baffled as it works for some people and not others. People sitting next to each other!
Essentially the proxy gets in the way (from all non-JDK reports) and this is why you can't see the Last Seen dates in the site for all licensees.
The KB: https://intellij-support.jetbrains.com/hc/en-us/articles/206544889-SignatureException-Signature-doesn-t-match-or-Signature-length-not-correct-got-256-but-was-expecting-512
Solution:
The only alternative is to use the Offline Activation codes for each user who will need to login to https://JetBrains.com and get their individual Offline Activation code. Then activate the software offline. Help Menu > Register.
SQ 5.6, LDAP plugin 2.0.
I've successfully installed the LDAP plugin and restarted the SQ server. In the log (/opt/sonar/logs/sonar.log) the plugin is apparently deployed, but seemingly no attempt is made to initialize/enable it or connect to the LDAP server.
INFO web[o.s.s.p.ServerPluginRepository] Deploy plugin LDAP / 2.0 / 2910f3981167a70a201ccfae01471dfd26c794b7
.
.
INFO web[o.s.s.p.RailsAppsDeployer] Deploying app: ldap
These are the only mentions of ldap/LDAP in the log.
Relevant part of the conf/sonar.properties file:
sonar.security.realm=LDAP
ldap.url=ldap://myldap:389
ldap.user.baseDn=ou=mycompany,ou=People,dc=myurl,dc=com
I believe I've verified ldap.url and ldap.user.baseDn via JXplorer (an LDAP browser).
What really puzzles me is that I don't see anything like the following in the logs, which is what I'd expect from the SQ docs:
INFO org.sonar.INFO Security realm: LDAP ...
INFO o.s.p.l.LdapContextFactory Test LDAP connection: OK
No errors of any kind are noted in the log.
Any idea why SQ is not even apparently trying to kick off LDAP authentication on a restart?
I had the same problem. I'm running Sonarqube using docker. It did not pick up on changes when I restart the server from the Sonarqube UI. Only after restarting the docker image it could pick up the changed file.
Well, now it just started working. I don't have an answer as to why though. Maybe something changed with my LDAP server, or there was some latency that needed to be overcome. I didn't change anything on my end that I'm aware of. In any case, thanks to those that responded.
I installed WSO2 AM(API Manager) 1.10.0 and used the user-mgt.xml from working AM 1.9.0, but now I cannot login to carbon admin UI.
API Manager is configured with LDAP read only primary user store.
Additionally API Manager is configured to work with default H2. But I think this is not a reason.
If I configure API Manager with a standard user store (without any changes to user-mgt.xml, i.e. without adding readOnlyLdap config and removing default JDBC UserStoreManager), login to admin-dashboard works OK.
I got the warning message from wso2carbon.log:
TID: [-1234] [] [2016-07-03 05:55:54,731] WARN {org.wso2.carbon.core.services.util.CarbonAuthenticationUtil} - Failed Administrator login attempt 'admin[-1234]' at [2016-07-03 05:55:54,730+0000] {org.wso2.carbon.core.services.util.CarbonAuthenticationUtil}
I made the changes as suggested per I am unable to login to admin-dashboard application in WSO2 API manager , unfortunately that solution did not work for me.
Basically I installed brand new WSO2 am 1.10.0, with default settings, all works fine, until I changed user-mtg.xml to enable LDAP, I cannot login to carbon/admin UI anymore. So LDAP does not work out of the box with wso2 am 1.10.0? I followed the instructions related to LDAP set up, but it just did not work.
The strange thing is, LDAP works with am 1.9.0. So any difference in setting up LDAP between version 1.10.0 and 1.9.0?
UPDATE:
For the moment, I gave up integarting LDAP with wso2 am 1.10.0. I moved to SAML2. But keep the question open in case someone has worked out of this with a solution, or this might help others. Thanks.
What is the value of the GetAllRolesOfUserEnabled property under AuthorizationManager in user-mgt.xml?
<AuthorizationManager class="org.wso2.carbon.user.core.authorization.JDBCAuthorizationManager">
<Property name="AdminRoleManagementPermissions">/permission</Property>
<Property name="AuthorizationCacheEnabled">true</Property>
<Property name="GetAllRolesOfUserEnabled">false</Property>
</AuthorizationManager>
That property is not part of the 1.9 config and in 1.10 the default config has this set to false and we were seeing similar login issues. Setting this to true resolved this issue for us.
Joe
I can provide following hints.
Since you haven't mentioned about the master-datasources.xml, I doubt the following. Do you have a external userstore database used in 1.9.0? If so, have you pointed 1.10.0 to the same database?
Log doesn't clearly say whether it failed due to authentication or authorization error. To find this out, you need to enable debug logs for the package org.wso2.carbon.user.core. This can be done in the repository/conf/log4j.properties file and needs a restart. Then, when your next login attemp fails, it will show you more details.
I'm using ActiveMQ 5.10 and would like to create a user that has read-only access through the web console.
Red Hat published this article, mentioning that it's not really read only due to a bug in ActiveMQ.
According to the bug report AMQ-4567, the bug is fixed as of ActiveMQ 5.9. However, I'm not seeing it work appropriately.
I have tried a number of different configurations, with the most recent being two separate JAAS implementations, one for Jetty and one for ActiveMQ. The relevant property files are excerpted below.
I can mostly log in to the web console using the "system" user. But the guest user doesn't work at all. The application user (appuser) doesn't need access to the web console at all.
My authN/authZ needs are pretty trivial: one admin user, one application account, and one read-only monitoring account.
Is there any good way to get this working with a recent version of ActiveMQ (>= 5.9.0)?
groups.properties
admins=system
users=appuser,admin
guests=guest
users.properties
system={password redacted}
appuser=appuser
guest=guest
jetty-realm.properties
system: MD5:46cf1b5451345f5176cd70713e0c9e07,user,admin
guest: guest,guest
As an aside, I used the Jetty tutorial and the Rundeck instructions to figure out the jetty-realm.properties file and chapter 6 of ActiveMQ in Action to work out the ActiveMQ JAAS.
I was finally able to get to what I wanted by deploying the web console to an external Tomcat instance. I assume that when it runs out of process, it can't bypass security and so has to use whatever credentials you provide. In this case, I gave the Tomcat instance the read-only JMX user credentials.
It's not great, as there is no security trimmed UI. You can still attempt to create new destinations, delete destinations, etc. When you try with a read-only user, you get an error. That gets a "D" for UX, but a "B" for security.
When running a web deploy to a specific IIS site I get the following error:
Error: The synchronization is being stopped because the maximum number of sync passes '5' has been exceeded even though all the changes could not be applied. This could occur if there are external changes being made to the destination.
At C:\Code\.....\deploy.ps1:185 char:10
+ & <<<< ($appDeployCmd) $type /M:$url /U:$user /P:$pass /A:Basic -allowUntrusted -useCheckSum
+ CategoryInfo : NotSpecified: (Error: The sync...he destination.:String) [], RemoteException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : NativeCommandError
Web Deploy is working fine on this environment against other IIS sites and file syncs are also working. I have previously been able to use web deploy to deploy this specific site without issue. All of the sudden out of nowhere, this issue started happening and I can no longer deploy this site.
I'm doing a basic site deploy with a package built from msbuild. I don't think the specifics are that important because as I said this was all working before and currently works against other sites on the same server farm without issues.
The error message says:
"This could occur if there are external changes being made to the destination."
but I'm not sure how to track this down or if it is even the issue to begin with. I've made sure all explorer windows are closed in all remote sessions. I've tried restarting the site and the app pool. The only thing I have not tried is rebooting the server which is not possible at moment.
Any ideas what might be cause this web deploy to fail?
I had the same error and the problem was my dropbox.
I was working directly in my dropbox folder, and when you publish, it causes dropbox to syncronize at the same time, which caused the error.
Disabling dropbox sync while working solved the problem.
I recon the problem also could happen with onedrive, google drive and so on.
We had this problem when converting from a previously adhoc deploy of a service to MSDeploy, and found that if there were files that were either
marked as read-only via the DOS/Windows read-only file attribute.
inaccessible due to ACLs
then we would get the "maximum number of sync passes" error on deploying.
Once we fixed the attributes/ACLs, we were able to sync.
Quick and easy way to resolve this issue is to delete the files in the destination and re-run the web deploy.
The issue seems to revolve around the ACL step of the web deploy, which attempts to change the permissions of your websites files as a safety measure intended to ensure they are not changed during a deployment.
By default Web Deploy sets the ACL of the sites anonymous user to read only while also overwriting Control Panel access to your website.
Source
You can turn of ACL in future to avoid this if you wish, but it's not really worth it. This will also speed up web deploys - but that is a separate issue.
Not really an answer, but one workaround you can try if you are using the Web Deploy dirPath, filePath, or contentPath providers is the ignoreErrors provider setting. If you know that you are consistently hitting a certain error number, you can specify that that error be ignored when it's hit. See the dirPath provider article for full details (and caveats).
In my case I couldn't fix it but realised the deployment worked regardless.
If you are reading this I wouldn't suggest to just assume it worked, and if it did that it deployed fully, but consider that it may be a false alarm!