On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 11/28/2016 10:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:33:04PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > The design page is done [0] and it's based on this discussion [1] we
> > had on this very same mailing list. A pull-request with the
> > implementation is already opened [2].
> >
> > [0]:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/SocketActivatableResponders
> > [1]:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahoste...
> > [2]:
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/84
> >
> > The full text of c&p here:
>
> In general looks good to me, but note that I was involved a bit with
> Fabiano in the discussion, so my view might be tainted.
I finally got to it. The design page looks good and I'll start reviewing the
patches.
The only think I wonder about is whether we want to pass parameters " --uid
0 --gid 0 --debug-to-files" or we will read the from sssd.conf? I prefer
reading them.
Also what do we use the private sockets for? It is used only for root?
Yes, that's where we route PAM requests started by UID 0 to.
>
> > The only question I have is actually something Stephen asked during
> > review of the KCM design page -- there might be a situation where a
> > periodic timer (like credentials renewal in KCM) might conflict with
> > socket-activated responder time out. At worst, we can just disable the
> > time out, or we can explore Stephen's suggestion there or do something
> > else. But this problem is worth keeping in mind.
>
> Exploring Stephen's suggestion seem as a way to go at the moment. I wouldn't
> disabling the timeout since then it doesn't need to be socket activated at
> all because you loose all its benefits.
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org