[SSSD] [PATCH] expand_ccname_template: fixes and tests

Pavel Březina pbrezina at redhat.com
Thu Sep 5 15:17:24 UTC 2013


On 09/05/2013 03:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:49 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>> On 09/04/2013 09:12 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:06 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 15:25 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/03/2013 01:27 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> while looking at expand_ccname_template() becasue of shadowing rewind()
>>>>>>> I realized that there a some issues with some of the new krb5.conf
>>>>>>> templates. This patch fixes them and adds some tests to avoid similar
>>>>>>> issues in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one change in behaviour. If the name in the %{} braces does not
>>>>>>> match any of the known krb5.conf templates for UNIX the new code returns
>>>>>>> an error while the old just returned something, which in most case will
>>>>>>> not be the original input. Please tell me if you prefer the original
>>>>>>> input in this case so that I can change the patch accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should expand the parameters we can, i.e. uid and euid and
>>>>>> leave everything else intact (i.e. don't even check ${LIBDIR} etc.). Ad
>>>>>> absurdum: for what we know, users can ran custom build that supports
>>>>>> other variables...
>>>>>
>>>>> True, I was looking at this code yesterday again as I am hadling 2071
>>>>> and I was thinking the same, we should just ignore and leave unchanged
>>>>> %{xyz} patterns we do not understand, so that if libkrb5 adds something
>>>>> the admin can use we do not have to explicitly support it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you don't agree, I'll ack this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, let's nack, and if you all do not mind I can come up with an
>>>>> alternative patch that does what I describe above.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you prefer, but I can do the needed changes as well. If you do
>>>> them, please do not forget to add tests for the cases which are
>>>> currently not covered.
>>>
>>> I opened bug #2076 to track this issue and attached find a different
>>> approach with testes against current master.
>>>
>>> Simo.
>>
>> Nack.
>>
>> krb5_utils-tests.c: In function ‘test_krb5_style_expansion’:
>> krb5_utils-tests.c:679:9: error: unused variable ‘ret’
>>
>> It looks good otherwise.
>> Can we also include Sumit's tests?
>
> Sumit's tests consider any 'unknown' expansion variable as invalid, so
> they would fail.
>
> Attached new version w/o ret and rebased on current master.
>
> Simo.

OK then. Ack.




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list