[SSSD] [PATCH] possible alternative for #2071

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Thu Sep 26 18:25:12 UTC 2013


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:50:16PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:37 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 12:52 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 01:09:34PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 13:41 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:25:30PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:52:14PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > > > > Attached an untested possible alternative for #2071
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The other option is the last patch of my previous patchset in the thread
> > > > > > > > named: "[SSSD] [PATCHES] Simplify credential krb5 cache manipulation".
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Let's discuss if any of these  approaches is ok, or if a third way needs
> > > > > > > > to be found.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Simo.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > (a short summary of the two patches in discussion)
> > > > > > > The difference between the two approaches is that the patch in this
> > > > > > > tread just sets the permission on all newly created directories to
> > > > > > > "new_dir_mode = 0700" making them private by default. The patch in the
> > > > > > > other thread tries to improve the current scheme where SSSD tries to
> > > > > > > figure out which directory which must be created is a public or a
> > > > > > > private one and sets the mode accordingly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I agree with 'Setting up public directories is the job of the admin' and
> > > > > > > like the fact that the patch is making the SSSD code much simpler. But I
> > > > > > > assume that there are SSSD setups in use which depend on the feature of
> > > > > > > creating the directories with the "right" permissions. I can imagine
> > > > > > > automatic installations e.g. with kickstart which does not create the
> > > > > > > needed directories but rely on SSSD to create them or installations
> > > > > > > where the credential caches are stored into some RAM based file system
> > > > > > > where directories must be recreated on every restart.  I do not want to
> > > > > > > discuss the correctness of those approaches or if the paths used to
> > > > > > > store the credential caches are chosen wisely my point is just that a
> > > > > > > change might break existing installations.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For this reason I would prefer to just improve the existing behaviour.
> > > > > > > But if a majority says that it is time for a change I will not argue
> > > > > > > against it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > bye,
> > > > > > > Sumit
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's a good point.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could we get away with keeping the existing behaviour and printing a log
> > > > > > message whenever we create a public directory saying that this feature
> > > > > > might go away in a later release?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I do not really think it is a good point.
> > > > > A) I really do not think there is any user fo this feature, the only 2
> > > > > places where people put stuff today are /tmp (FILE or DIR) and /run/user
> > > > > (DIR).
> > > > > 
> > > > > /tmp is already set up correctly (if not many other things will break
> > > > > and SSSD should *not* mask the mess by creating the dir and further
> > > > > confusing the admin.
> > > > > /run/user is a private directory so making it public would be wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think a change of behavior is in the best interest of our community
> > > > > even if it ends up breaking 1 rare install that happened to know of this
> > > > > new behavior and intentionally used it.
> > > > 
> > > > Bump and attached find the 2 patches rebased both on top of my latest
> > > > patchset sent to the list earlier.
> > > > 
> > > > 0004 tries to maintain behavior, just saner.
> > > > 0001 is the option to remove it completely.
> > > 
> > > As agreed yesterday on a call, we're going to remove the option
> > > completely. The patch no longer applies cleanly, not even with a 3-way
> > > merge. I had to apply it with patch(1), so can you please re-send? One
> > > minor comment inline:
> > 
> > It doesn't apply because, it depends on the patch from the other
> > patchset that you did not apply ("krb5: Improve ccache name checks")
> 
> Ok fixed the issues and rebase before the other patch, should apply
> cleanly on master now.
> 
> Simo.
> 
> -- 
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

There still must be some patch missing in between, I can't compile this
version:

  CC       src/providers/krb5/krb5_init_shared.lo
/home/remote/jhrozek/devel/sssd/src/providers/krb5/krb5_auth.c:295:17: warning: unused variable 'realm' [-Wunused-variable]
    const char *realm;
                ^
2 warnings generated.
/home/remote/jhrozek/devel/sssd/src/tests/krb5_child-test.c:249:57: error: too many arguments to function call, expected 5, have 6
                                            true, true, &private);
                                                        ^~~~~~~~
/home/remote/jhrozek/devel/sssd/src/providers/krb5/krb5_utils.h:48:1: note: 'expand_ccname_template' declared here
char *expand_ccname_template(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx, struct krb5child_req *kr,
^
/home/remote/jhrozek/devel/sssd/src/tests/krb5_child-test.c:265:55: error: too many arguments to function call, expected 4, have 5
                                    kr->uid, kr->gid, private);
                                                      ^~~~~~~



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list