On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:32 AM, jhrozek
Title: #32: Requesting a pull to SSSD:master from fidencio:wip/#3138
Hi, thank you for working on this. I think there are two "architectural"
questions we should answer.
1) Lukas raised the suggestion of using PreExec with `sssd --genconf` on #sssd on IRC.
Did you explore this or did you not like this solution because of race-conditions?
I do believe it may work, but I would have to adapt sssd --genconf
logic, in order to avoid race-conditions.Shall I go for it?
I was thinking about waiting a little bit before doing any changes to
let people raise their questions/comments so I won't spend one week on
something that's not going to be used at all.
There are still the suggestions/questions raised by Pavel in the bug
report, where Dmitri jumped in as well, that just makes me think that
people are not in sync about the confdb itself and any kind of effort
on this area must have some agreement beforehand.
What do you think about this?
2) If we don't use `sssd --genconf`, I wonder if it would be
actually better to add the new socket to the monitor process rather than a new service
(sorry, I realize it was me who lead you down this path of adding a new service...I only
remembered this idea now once @simo5 mentioned it on IRC). IMO this would have one
advantage which is that the sssd process is already permitted by SELinux to read sssd.conf
and write to confdb. And long-term we wanted to make the sssd process only initialize sssd
and then exit since the services would (in the ideal case of a modern Linux system)
I really don't know what's the best approach and I completely opened
See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/32#issuecomment-250105213
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org