On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:06 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 15:25 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > On 09/03/2013 01:27 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > while looking at expand_ccname_template() becasue of shadowing rewind()
> > > I realized that there a some issues with some of the new krb5.conf
> > > templates. This patch fixes them and adds some tests to avoid similar
> > > issues in the future.
> > >
> > > There is one change in behaviour. If the name in the %{} braces does not
> > > match any of the known krb5.conf templates for UNIX the new code returns
> > > an error while the old just returned something, which in most case will
> > > not be the original input. Please tell me if you prefer the original
> > > input in this case so that I can change the patch accordingly.
> >
> > I think we should expand the parameters we can, i.e. uid and euid and
> > leave everything else intact (i.e. don't even check ${LIBDIR} etc.). Ad
> > absurdum: for what we know, users can ran custom build that supports
> > other variables...
>
> True, I was looking at this code yesterday again as I am hadling 2071
> and I was thinking the same, we should just ignore and leave unchanged
> %{xyz} patterns we do not understand, so that if libkrb5 adds something
> the admin can use we do not have to explicitly support it.
>
> > But if you don't agree, I'll ack this patch.
>
> No, let's nack, and if you all do not mind I can come up with an
> alternative patch that does what I describe above.
Whatever you prefer, but I can do the needed changes as well. If you do
them, please do not forget to add tests for the cases which are
currently not covered.
I opened bug #2076 to track this issue and attached find a different
approach with testes against current master.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York