On (24/06/16 13:49), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (24/06/16 10:29), Michal Židek wrote:
>>On 06/24/2016 09:57 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>> > On 06/23/2016 09:40 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:10:34PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:29:13PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
>>> > > > > On (23/06/16 18:59), Michal Židek wrote:
>>> > > > > > On 06/23/2016 06:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> > > > > > > On (23/06/16 18:24), Michal Židek wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > On 06/23/2016 05:50 PM, Michal Židek
wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > Lukas,
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > did you have some local patches
related to
>>> > > > > > > > > this patch, that you did not send
here?
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Because I can not apply the patch on
current
>>> > > > > > > > > master and the changes in the context
of
>>> > > > > > > > > your patch seem like you did
something with
>>> > > > > > > > > default config file path?
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Slightly modified version that
applies on
>>> > > > > > > > > current master is attached (the
changes
>>> > > > > > > > > are the same, but the context
differs).
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Michal
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > I added the missing access check for
>>> > > > > > > > snippets. If the snippets does not
>>> > > > > > > > pass the access check it is skipped
>>> > > > > > > > and a loud debug message is logged.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > I attach it as separate patch for
>>> > > > > > > > easier review, but it should be squashed
>>> > > > > > > > before pushing. I also attach the first
>>> > > > > > > > patch for convenience.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Michal
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > From
6299c0c9e2d07f0764be80e73334e3cdc2ba2b12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> > > > > > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?=
<mzidek(a)redhat.com>
>>> > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:09:34 +0100
>>> > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] confdb: Make it possible
to use config snippets
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Resolves:
>>> > > > > > > >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2247
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Slebodnik
<lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
>>> > > > > > > > ---
>>> > > > > LGTM.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > It isn't ACK because I was involved in development
>>> > > > > and I didn;t test last version but code is fine fore me.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I just ran a quick test and the patch works for me and the
code reads OK
>>> > > > as well. I will push after CI finishes.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I also opened:
>>> > > >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/3062
>>> > > > because the patch is missing documentation and
>>> > > >
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/3063
>>> > > > to add at least a simple integration test.
>>> > >
>>> > > Actually, can we get rid of this warning?
>>> > >
>>> > > Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>> > > sssd-1.13.91/src/util/sss_ini.c:216:17: warning: unused variable
'patterns' [-Wunused-variable]
>>> > > # const char *patterns[] = { "^[^\\.].*\\.conf", NULL
};
>>> > > # ^
>>> > > # 214| int ret;
>>> > > # 215| #ifdef HAVE_LIBINI_CONFIG_V1
>>> > > # 216|-> const char *patterns[] = {
"^[^\\.].*\\.conf", NULL };
>>> > > # 217| const char *sections[] = { ".*", NULL };
>>> > > # 218| #ifdef HAVE_LIBINI_CONFIG_V1_3
>>> > >
>>> > > Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>> > > sssd-1.13.91/src/util/sss_ini.c: scope_hint: In function
'sss_ini_get_config'
>>> > > sssd-1.13.91/src/util/sss_ini.c:217:17: warning: unused variable
'sections' [-Wunused-variable]
>>> > > # const char *sections[] = { ".*", NULL };
>>> > > # ^
>>> > > # 215| #ifdef HAVE_LIBINI_CONFIG_V1
>>> > > # 216| const char *patterns[] = {
"^[^\\.].*\\.conf", NULL };
>>> > > # 217|-> const char *sections[] = { ".*", NULL
};
>>> > > # 218| #ifdef HAVE_LIBINI_CONFIG_V1_3
>>> > > # 219| uint32_t i = 0;
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> >
>>> > New patch attached.
>>> >
>>> > Michal
>>> >
>>>
>>> The patch is fine, (so ack also from me), but can someone check if the
>>> attached rebase on top of Pavel's sssctl is OK?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I did not check the differences between the rebased and
>>non-rebased version, but I just tried branch with sssctl
>>patches + this rebased patch + startup validation patches
>>and it worked for me.
>>
>>But the CI failed for me with the snippets in place.
>>Will take a look at what is happening there.
>>
>It failed beccause it bas broken with libini_config 1.0 .. 1.2
>and current CI machines still have libini_config 1.2
>or 1.1 (el6)
>
>Updated patch is attached.
>
Ups,
ENOPATCH
fixed in this version :-)
Previous version had an issue with SELinux and blocking
access to conf.d.
Hopefully last version is attached.
LS