On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 07:02:06PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
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.
It should and is in the attached patch.
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.
Not so sure, I still like the division betwen SSS_DP_* on the responder
side and BE_REQ_* on the back end side.
I'd like to hear other opinions, though.