Reported by: cppcheck
void free_fun(struct info *info)
info = NULL;
Assignment to function parameter has no effect outside the function.
Patch is attached.
The attached patch addresses:
The memberof example was misleading and was making aministrators think
that the ldap_access_filter can resolve nested group memberships.
The alternative I was considering was changing the example to use a
different attribute altogether, but I was struggling to come up with an
example that wouldn't be too artificial (like
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:23:55PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:43:51PM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > Hi,
> > currently we trust the idrange data we get from the IPA server. But it
> > turned out that some checks are missing on the server
> > (https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4137) so SSSD should check the
> > input before saving the data to the cache.
> > The first two patches make some code which already exists available for
> > other callers. The third contains the actual functionality.
> > bye,
> > Sumit
> Hi, I rebased your patches on top of master, can you check if they look
> OK to you and resend if they are fine? I'll continue testing with my
> version in the meantime.
sorry I forgot to send a version for master myself. The patches are
exactly the same as in my master tree.
resendig patch from trac to review.
Original patches submitted by: mpesari(Thanks!!)
It can cause problems if user will hit spaces before entering username.
(e.g in gdm). Spaces are ignored by LDAP; it's better to escape them.
Do we want to escape '\t' (horizontal tab) as well?
for the first iteration of SSSD provider for OpenLMI I have created a
very simple model, that handles the most fundamental parts of SSSD:
domains and services (responders) - listing, activation and deactivation.
MOF class for this model is attached. It still lacks some annotation and
description but I think it is pretty much straightforward and doesn't
need any more explanation for developers.
The model contains four kinds of methods:
- get all supported (configured) services (domains)
- get active services (domains)
- enable service (domain)
- disable service (domain)
I've chosen this approach so we don't have to amend the model with each
new responder. So instead of EnableNSSService(), users will use
Restart of SSSD deamon shall be handled by standard service provider, so
we don't have to deal with it - we just let users know that some changes
requires restarting. However, I'm inclined to create a method under SSSD
object (LMI_SSSD::Restart) to make the interface more complete in later
Now I'm looking for a way how the LMI provider will communicate with
SSSD. I've been playing with Jakub's D-Bus responder for a while and it
seems like a good way to go. We can expose everything we need over D-Bus
with proper access control and it all stays under SSSD control, having
LMI provider only as a simple client.
I would like to create a client wrapper over provided D-Bus interface
(say libsss_dbus), that will provide simple synchronous interface to
query D-Bus, encapsulating most of the D-Bus complexity. I have prepared
a proof of concept for this library, using both libdbus and recommended
libdbus-glib. It encapsulates ListDomains and property Get D-Bus method.
You can see both versions here:
Probably the biggest advantage of libdbus-glib is the simplicity of work
with variants and dictionaries. However, I think it is quite an overkill
for our needs. I'm more inclined to use libdbus and write an automatized
parser for those data types, it won't be hard.
What do you say? Should I go this way?
Jakub, can you send the D-Bus responder to the list? It would be nice to
include it in master as an experimental feature and create tickets for
further work so we can work on it simultaneously.