[SSSD] sss_cache flush ssh hosts list.

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Aug 28 21:02:46 UTC 2014


On (28/08/14 19:19), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>On 08/28/2014 07:13 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (28/08/14 18:37), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>On 08/28/2014 06:24 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>On (28/08/14 18:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>On 08/25/2014 02:05 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>Dne 4.8.2014 v 19:34 Pavel Reichl napsal(a):
>>>>>>>On 07/21/2014 02:08 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:55:20PM +0200, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 18.7.2014 06:41, William wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ignore that last patch, I messed up and didn't include a .h file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Here
>>>>>>>>>>>>is the fixed patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>This new patch seems to be based on some older version of the
>>>>>>>>>>>patch, it
>>>>>>>>>>>uses wrong option name, sysdb_update_ssh_host still has the confdb
>>>>>>>>>>>argument, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fixed, and fixed the documentation into the xml file, removed the
>>>>>>>>>>references to the .pot file.
>>>>>>>>>I don't see any of the requested fixes in the patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See attachment for fixed patch. I also did a few additional tweaks to
>>>>>>>>>make
>>>>>>>>>the patch work when SSSD is updated from a previous version and when
>>>>>>>>>building without SSH bits.
>>>>>>>>Awesome thank you, I guess some of us need to review the patch now
>>>>>>>>you're also an author.
>>>>>>>While Jan was so kind to give me some hints on how to test patch
>>>>>>>properly, we found out a little bug. So Jan is going to  prepare an
>>>>>>>updated patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll do the review then.
>>>>>>I can't reproduce the issue, maybe something else was wrong in your setup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the record, I installed IPA in a VM and then ran these commands on it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>$ sss_ssh_knownhostsproxy --debug 10 $HOSTNAME
>>>>>>[no errors]
>>>>>>$ cat /var/lib/sss/pubconf/known_hosts
>>>>>>[not empty]
>>>>>># systemctl stop ipa
>>>>>>$ sss_ssh_knownhostsproxy --debug 10 $HOSTNAME
>>>>>>[no errors]
>>>>>>$ cat /var/lib/sss/pubconf/known_hosts
>>>>>>[not empty]
>>>>>># sss_cache -H
>>>>>>$ sss_ssh_knownhostsproxy --debug 10 $HOSTNAME
>>>>>>[no errors]
>>>>>>$ cat /var/lib/sss/pubconf/known_hosts
>>>>>>[empty]
>>>>>># systemctl start ipa
>>>>>>$ sss_ssh_knownhostsproxy --debug 10 $HOSTNAME
>>>>>>[no errors]
>>>>>>$ cat /var/lib/sss/pubconf/known_hosts
>>>>>>[not empty]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pavel had an empty /var/lib/sss/pubconf/known_hosts in the last step, I
>>>>>>have it non-empty as expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(sorry for the delay, I was on leave)
>>>>>>
>>>>>This test ran OK this time, so I think you are right.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have some comments to the patch itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not personally fan of big patches like this one. Could you at least
>>>>>separate the man page changes to separate patch - so we can ask some native
>>>>>speaker to review it.
>>>>I am not big fan of splitting patches just for "man page changes"
>>>>
>>>>LS
>>>I like small patches, each doing one think and one think only. But I know I
>>>can't get always what I want.
>>>
>>>Still I believe that it would be a good policy to have man page updates in
>>>separate patch as we already have policy to ask native speaker to do review
>>>such changes. I think, it's a way more convenient for reviewer not to have
>>>search through the patch for man page changes and as a bonus he gets
>>>reviewed-by achievement.  :-)
>>>
>>>What are you reasons not to have separate patch?
>>>
>>https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/2014-August/021296.html
>>
>>LS
>I have read that already no need to link messages a few minutes old.
In this case, I don't understand why did you ask?
(no reply needed :-)

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list