On 11/05/2015 08:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (04/11/15 18:58), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
> 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
account
>>>>> 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.
>
We spent enormous time with such unimportant patch.
I pushed patch with Sumit's propsal "pam_test_service"
using one-liner rule.
So this rule really allows you to:
1) amend patch yourself,
2) change authorship of the patch,
3) ack the patch yourself,
4) push the patch yourself,
5) single out patch of its patchset?
Wow what a powerful rule, where can I find more information about this rule?
master:
* 8cfc3d5aeea21a3b8d1801aeef4866a4d3e7add0
LS
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel