On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 15:22 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 02:56 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 14:44 +0100, Pavel Březina 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]:
https://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.
> >
> > How would this work ?
>
> If responder is listed in disabled_services, it won't be allowed to
> start via socket activation. If disabling the socket as Fabiano
> mentioned in the other mail is enough, I'm fine with it, plese test.
I am not sure this is a good behavior as clients will see a connection
being accept and then dropped, and may misbehave or report strange
errors.
So, thinking a little bit about it Pavel's idea is not bad.
If you have a list of "not allowed"/"disabled" services we can, at
least, report the proper error when enabling the service.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
>
> Simo.
>
> --
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org