On 11/04/2015 06:41 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 03:02 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (04/11/15 14:40), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> Also one of few not yet tested corners of pam_reply() - 'Printing
>>> expiration warning for sshd' requires pam_service to be sshd, but I can
>>> change when I will write another test (it might happen soon as pcech is
>>> working on similar change in adjacent code).
>> That's exactly the reason why the default value should not be sshd.
> I don't understand why this would be the reason can you elaborate?
Because a default value should not lead to a code path which handles a
special case. The general PAM responder test should not run through the
'sshd' case in pam_reply() only if the service is set explicitly to
'sshd' this features should be tests.
Sure, but just setting sshd would not lead to execution of this branch AFAIK at least pam
verbosity would be needed to be set. As said before service value doesn't matter in
current test so IMO this patch would only set service to more sane default
however I agree with you that 'generic service name' is not a bad idea at all.
So as said earlier it might be best to replace it with a generic service
name which is nowhere used in the main code.
>> And if there will be test for "Printing account expiration warning"
>> Then the name of service should be explicitelly set to sshd.
>> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel mailing list