thanks for your comments.
done.

> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:26:53 -0400
> From: dpal@redhat.com
> To: sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> Subject: Re: [SSSD] [PATHC] 1625-Confusing error messages for invalid sssd.conf
>
> On 03/20/2013 12:28 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:06:56PM -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> >> Wouldn't this area be affected by the work needed for using newer
> >> version of the libini?
> > That's a good point, thanks, I haven't relized that. But I still suspect
> > we would get EPERM on wrong sssd.conf permissions.
> > _______________________________________________
> > sssd-devel mailing list
> > sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
>
> It returns what fopen() & open() does.
> And according to man page it is EACCESS rather than EPERM.
>
> EACCES The requested access to the file is not allowed, or search per-
> mission is denied for one of the directories in the path
> prefix
> of pathname, or the file did not exist yet and write
> access to
> the parent directory is not allowed. (See also
> path_resolu-
> tion(7).)
>
>
> EPERM The O_NOATIME flag was specified, but the effective user ID of
> the caller did not match the owner of the file and the
> caller
> was not privileged (CAP_FOWNER).
>
>
> IMO you should check for both.
>
>
> Also if the code is using the access check call (will be used with the
> new interface and proposed refactoring of the code) the access check
> will return EACCESS if the permissions on the file are wrong.
> See the header ini_configobj.h in ini folder.
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Dmitri Pal
>
> Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Looking to carve out IT costs?
> www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel