On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:01:13PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 21:34 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 02:12:34PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 11:59 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 11:54:46AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > the attached patches fix
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2701
> > > >
> > > > The first patch just adds a common function instead of copying the
same
> > > > pattern again to the new test.
> > > >
> > > > The second adds a new request krb5_auth_queue_send() that wraps
> > > > krb5_auth_send() and also uses the Kerberos authentication queue. I
hope
> > > > the unit tests cover a lot of use-cases, if not, please suggest
more!
> > > >
> > > > btw I was thinking that the chaining might not always be necessary
if
> > > > the ccache is of type MEMORY and I hope that the serializaton
wouldn't
> > > > be perceived as performance regression for users. Shall we say that
> > > > Pavel's cached auth patches are a more systematic solution that
doesn't
> > > > rely on properties of the ccache type in that case?
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but CI fails on Debian because of wrong linking with
> > > libraries. I'm already testing a fix. Review of the rest is
appreciated
> > > :-)
> >
> > If we are serializing all authentications then a busy server would be
> > swamped. I do not see a per-user/per-cache queue so I would tentatively
> > NACK the approach sorry.
>
> The current cache queue is per user, see add_to_wait_queue() for
> details.
I actually did look to check that and failed, I blame the late hour :-)
Ah, I thought that goes without saying it's not a responder-global queue
:-)
Per-user is fine by me, though I would seriously consider de-duplication
while we are here.
What exactly do you propose here?