[SSSD] [PATCH] Clarify debug message about initgroups and subdomains

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Mon Nov 12 14:17:46 UTC 2012


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:06:14PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 05:56:25PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > On 11/08/2012 05:04 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > >On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:41:10PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
> > >>On 11/08/2012 12:48 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >>>On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:31:17PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >>>>On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:11:20AM +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > >>>>>Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>this patch fixes https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1610 by changing
> > >>>>>the debug message. See commit message for details.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>bye,
> > >>>>>Sumit
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Ack
> > >>>
> > >>>Pushed to master and sssd-1-9
> > >>
> > >>Hi,
> > >>nack from me.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>We should also change the code on ipa_id.c:80:
> > >>
> > >>     if (strcasecmp(ar->domain, breq->be_ctx->domain->name) != 0) {
> > >>         if (! ((ar->entry_type & BE_REQ_USER) ||
> > >>                (ar->entry_type & BE_REQ_GROUP))) {
> > >>             return sdap_handler_done(breq, DP_ERR_FATAL, EINVAL,
> > >>                                      "Invalid sub-domain request type");
> > >>         }
> > >>
> > >>         req = ipa_get_subdomain_account_info_send(...);
> > >>         if (!req) {
> > >>             return sdap_handler_done(breq, DP_ERR_FATAL, ENOMEM, ...);
> > >>         }
> > >>
> > >>         tevent_req_set_callback(req, ipa_account_info_users_done, breq);
> > >>
> > >>         return;
> > >>     }
> > >>
> > >>This patch only works because we are wrongly using & instead of ==
> > >>in the condition above (BE_REQ* are not bitwise exclusive),
> > >>therefore the condition passes for initgroups.
> > >
> > >good catch
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Is there any point for having this condition here? I think it would
> > >>be better to remove it and let only
> > >>ipa_get_subdomain_account_info_send() to decide what requests are
> > >>valid.
> > >
> > >I agree, would you like to prepare the patch or shall I do?
> > 
> > Well, I didn't really plan to do it but there is no point to be
> > delayed but communication (although I usually screw these simple
> > patches) :) Patch is attached.
> 
> Ack

Pushed to master and sssd-1-9



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list