On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:07:27PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (08/10/14 17:46), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (06/10/14 15:46), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>attached are more patches that are related to running sssd as a
>>non-root. I split the functions to become a different user into a
>>separate module and provided unit tests using nss_wrapper and
>>uid_wrapper.
>>
>>There is a separate Makefile.am for the cwrap-based tests, because it's
>>not easy (read: possible without a wrapper script) to run tests with a
>>custom environment. Some build systems, like cmake, allow that, but
>>autotools does not.
>
>>From 565aca30c666cb696ccb5c6a9426144276c7dce9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com>
>>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:46:26 +0200
>>Subject: [PATCH 1/3] UTIL: Move become_user outside krb5 tree
>>
>>In order for several other SSSD processes to run as a non-root user, we
>>need to move the functions to become another user to a shared space in
>>our source tree.
>>---
>> Makefile.am | 20 ++++++++++++--------
>> src/providers/krb5/krb5_utils.h | 8 --------
>> .../krb5/krb5_become_user.c => util/become_user.c} | 1 -
>> src/util/util.h | 9 +++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> rename src/{providers/krb5/krb5_become_user.c => util/become_user.c} (99%)
>>
>>diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
>>index
eb0e649437f465d3354a0c063a29c65203824506..ac3f26cad6e1d0a5ac8979ce13286bc896c62b62 100644
>>--- a/Makefile.am
>>+++ b/Makefile.am
>>@@ -1286,13 +1286,14 @@ strtonum_tests_LDADD = \
>> krb5_utils_tests_SOURCES = \
>> src/tests/krb5_utils-tests.c \
>> src/providers/krb5/krb5_utils.c \
>>- src/providers/krb5/krb5_become_user.c \
>> src/providers/krb5/krb5_common.c \
>> src/util/sss_krb5.c \
>> src/providers/data_provider_fo.c \
>> src/providers/data_provider_opts.c \
>> src/providers/data_provider_callbacks.c \
>>- $(SSSD_FAILOVER_OBJ)
>>+ src/util/become_user.c \
>>+ $(SSSD_FAILOVER_OBJ) \
>>+ $(NULL)
>Does it make sense to add NULL at the end?
>You put new file before SSSD_FAILOVER_OBJ.
>If you think that it make sense I will not insist on change.
>
I'm not sure what you propose as a better way. I'm not opposed to a
change, but I'm not sure what shall I change.
I added the conditional into specfile. I also squashed in your changes
(thanks!) and new patches are attached.