[SSSD] [PATCHES] backend: initialize sudo only when it is enabled in services

Sumit Bose sbose at redhat.com
Wed Sep 12 12:23:41 UTC 2012


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19:57AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 06:54 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:52:53PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>On 09/10/2012 10:48 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>>On 09/07/2012 11:31 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>>>>On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:05:49PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>>>>0001 fixes https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1458
> >>>>>>0002 fixes a memory leak when be_process_init() fails. I think it
> >>>>>>should be fixed, even though the backend is in this case immediately
> >>>>>>terminated
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>the patches compile without errors and work as expected. Nevertheless I
> >>>>>have a few comments:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>0001:
> >>>>>  - I think it make sense to skip the initialization of the sudo target
> >>>>>    if there is no responder configured. But to avoid surprises on the
> >>>>>    user side I would recommend to do the initialization if it is
> >>>>>    configured explicitly in sssd.conf, i.e sudo_provider = ldap, and
> >>>>>    give a warning in the logs that the corresponding responder will not
> >>>>>    be running.
> >>>>
> >>>>I discussed this with Jakub before writing the patch. sudo_provider
> >>>>currently defaults to id_provider. If I get it right, you are
> >>>>suggesting to make the default value "none".
> >>>
> >>>No, sorry for not being clear here. I think the id_provider default is
> >>>right. I just wanted to say that if for whatever reasons the
> >>>sudo_provider parameter is used explicitly in sssd.conf the
> >>>sudo_provider should be initialization even if sudo is not listed in
> >>>services.
> >>>
> >>>bye,
> >>>Sumit
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>We agreed with Jakub that this makes more pressure on the user to
> >>>>understand the configuration so we chose not to do it. Although the
> >>>>configurations I've been seeing so far are mostly generated by
> >>>>authconfig or ipa-client-install (where are all providers set
> >>>>explicitly) so I don't think it is a problem after all. What do you say
> >>>>Jakub?
> >>>>
> >>>>If we decide to do it this way, it will also require changes in man page.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>+    ret = confdb_get_string(ctx->cdb, ctx, CONFDB_MONITOR_CONF_ENTRY,
> >>>>>>+                            CONFDB_MONITOR_ACTIVE_SERVICES, NULL, &services);
> >>>>>>+    if (ret != EOK) {
> >>>>>>+        DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
> >>>>>>+              ("Unable to read from confdb [%d]: %s\n", ret, strerror(ret)));
> >>>>>>+        return ret;
> >>>>>>+    }
> >>>>>>+
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - I would prefer to use confdb_get_string_as_list() and use strcmp()
> >>>>>    later on, to be on the safe side.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>0002: ACK
> >>>>>
> >>>>>bye,
> >>>>>Sumit
> >>
> >>OK, that makes sense. Patches are attached.
> >>
> >>I moved the code into separate function.
> >
> >Thank you for the new version. I only have a few comments left:
> >  - provider_enabled is not used
> >  - in the (!responder_enabled && provider != NULL && strcmp(provider, NO_PROVIDER)
> >    case, please just print the debug message and call load_backend_module()
> >    afterwards. So that the provider is loaded as requested in the config
> >    file. This would also avoid the strange debug message
> >(Tue Sep 11 18:46:38 2012) [sssd[be[ipa17.devel]]] [be_process_init_sudo] (0x0080): SUDO provider is set, but it is not listed in active services. SUDO support will not work!
> >(Tue Sep 11 18:46:38 2012) [sssd[be[ipa17.devel]]] [be_process_init] (0x2000): SUDO backend target successfully loaded from provider [(null)].
> 
> Thank you. I had the changes prepared, but I forgot to amend the commit.
> The patch is attached.

ACK

bye,
Sumit



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list