Unable to read ecdsa-p256 transit key with audit log enabled

[ngunia]

I am trying to use the transit backend to sign/verify some data. To achieve this, I used an ecdsa-p256 in development and it worked great.

In a production environment, running a 2 node Vault cluster, with a 3 node Consul cluster, I am unable to read information about the transit key.

I write the key:

$ vault write -f transit/keys/my_key type=ecdsa-p256
Success! Data written to: transit/keys/my_key

When I attempt to read, I get a 500 error:

$ vault read transit/keys/my_key
Error reading transit/keys/my_key: Error making API request.

URL: GET https://<vault_addr>:8200/v1/transit/keys/my_key
Code: 500. Errors:

* internal error

I investigated the logs of my Vault node, and was able to find this:

Jul 20 15:51:18 <redacted> vault[817]: {"time":"2017-07-20T15:51:18Z","type":"request","auth":{"client_token":"","accessor":"","display_name":"root","policies":["root"],"metadata":null},"request":{"id":"27c227eb-8d2d-6e35-0386-2cc7be751d2f","operation":"read","client_token":"hmac-sha256:635a2d3bde71a2e38830c57f255b69e3d472b4366d647fa5286881b1264108c9","client_token_accessor":"hmac-sha256:1eeb005f640ea14d63b19d60cdd2afb3024a1600485a7a5bb7a91ccf11a36238","path":"transit/keys/my_key","data":null,"remote_address":"readacted","wrap_ttl":0,"headers":{}},"error":""}
Jul 20 15:51:18 <redacted> vault[817]: 2017/07/20 15:51:18.515349 [ERROR] audit: panic during logging: request_path=transit/keys/my_key error="reflect: reflect.Value.Set using unaddressable value"

It seems that there is some issue caused by having the audit log enabled. I have the audit backend configured to write to syslog.

I am still able to sign/verify data, so this is not a huge blocker, I just ran across it in my verification that the key existed. I tested the same thing out with the default key type(aes256-gcm96) and received no such errors. If I can provide any more details, please feel free to ask.

[joelthompson]

Hi @ngunia -- this looks to be a duplicate of #2958 which should be fixed in the next version.

[ngunia]

@joelthompson Yes, looks the same to me. Sorry for the dupe, I'll close this one.