On 12/01/2016 03:36 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 15:19 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Pavel Březina <pbrezina(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2016 02:33 PM, 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]:
htatps://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/84
>>
>>
>> I think we should also provide 'disabled_services' option, to give admins
a
>> way to explicitly disable some responders if the don't want to used them.
>
> I have to double check a few things here but, AFAIU, just having the
> socket disabled (systemctl disable sssd-@responder@.socket) should be
> enough.
I guess I misunderstood what ou mean by "provide 'disabled_services'
option", I though you wanted to add that option to sssd.conf
Yes, this was my idea. I did not realized that we can just disable the
socket trough systemd, this solution is sufficient.
This brings up another thing to test though -- what happens if the
responder is socket activate and running and than you stop/disable the
socket trough systemd? Is SSSD already able to handle it gracefully?