Dne 23.1.2012 18:32, Jakub Hrozek napsal(a):
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:19:37AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 16:08 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 03:55:26PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>> Dne 23.1.2012 15:39, Jakub Hrozek napsal(a):
>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:23:36AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>> Dne 23.1.2012 02:24, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>>>>>> Also, when you call sss_dp_issue_request(), you're passing
'state' as
>>>>>> the pvt data for sss_dp_get_sudoers_msg(), but you meant to pass
'info',
>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we start using tallog_get_type_abort() to detect these
situations?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure we should ever abort, except for situations like
options
>>>> mismatch (those can be potentially very dangerous).
>>>
>>> We can set up our own 'abort' function using talloc_set_abort_fn().
>>> For example: we can create an abort function that would kill sssd if
>>> it is under development but prints DEBUG messages in users version.
>>>
>>
>> I like this idea if we can get around the requirement of having to
>> support an old talloc version.
>>
>>> This function is not yet documented.
>>
>> You can send a patch to man talloc :-)
>
> I'm all for this. Please file an enhancement ticket to track it.
A new patch rebased on top of the recent changes to enums is attached.
Just a nitpick - shouldn't enum sss_dp_type be named sss_dp_sudo_type?
Otherwise ack.
Good work!
Would it make sense to completely replace BE_REQ_SUDO with this enum? I
would certainly like it and I can do it as a part of my cn=defaults
patches where I'm refactoring SUDO DP so it is easier to implement new
responder request.