On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:36:00 +0100
Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On (12/11/14 10:00), Simo Sorce wrote:
> >I would create a helper function to be called on return that
> >transforms the error accordingly. This will allow to write the code
> >_and_ the comment once.
> >
> In this case, Stephan's patch is better
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=788567
Yes, this is a valid alternative.
> >The comment should be changed to something like this in either case:
> >/* When sssd is stopped return a safe error code as if sss was not
> >configured at all in nsswitch. This prevents bogus errors from
> >causing issues in applications, before sssd starts or if it fails to
> >respond. */
> >
> >No need to mention that sss is by default in nsswitch, as it is not
> >in all distributions and it really is inconsequential, the same
> >behaviour change hleps when sss is not the default but is has been
> >manually added and sssd is stopped or not started yet (for example
> >during boot).
> nss-pam-ldapd has the same behaviour in the same situation.
> Will we patch it as well? It's very likely we won't.
Sorry, I do not see how that matters :)
> The biggest problem is that sss is by default in nsswitch on
> fedora/rhel>=7 due to glibc caching and problem with GNOME,
> a) sssd-client is installed by default on this platforms.
> b) sssd need't be configured by default and in most cases won't be
> => sssd cannot run
> c) glibc developers don't want to adjust the error return code in
> glibc
>
> As a result of this, we need to patch sssd.
> I would say we should patch sssd just in downstream and
> Stephan's patch works well. I tested it.
Ok, then let's go with Stephen's patch.
Simo.
I don't personally mind whether we use Lukas' or Stephen's patch but I
would /strongly/ prefer the patch to be pushed upstream.
Non-upstream patches should be considered valid only as a temporary
workarounds..