[SSSD] [PATCH] sss_client: Return a different error when sssd is not running

Simo Sorce simo at redhat.com
Thu Nov 13 01:04:46 UTC 2014


On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:36:00 +0100
Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn at redhat.com> wrote:

> On (12/11/14 10:00), Simo Sorce wrote:
> >I would create a helper function to be called on return that
> >transforms the error accordingly. This will allow to write the code
> >_and_ the comment once.
> >
> In this case, Stephan's patch is better
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=788567

Yes, this is a valid alternative.

> >The comment should be changed to something like this in either case:
> >/* When sssd is stopped return a safe error code as if sss was not
> >configured at all in nsswitch. This prevents bogus errors from
> >causing issues in applications, before sssd starts or if it fails to
> >respond. */
> >
> >No need to mention that sss is by default in nsswitch, as it is not
> >in all distributions and it really is inconsequential, the same
> >behaviour change hleps when sss is not the default but is has been
> >manually added and sssd is stopped or not started yet (for example
> >during boot).
> nss-pam-ldapd has the same behaviour in the same situation.
> Will we patch it as well? It's very likely we won't.

Sorry, I do not see how that matters :)

> The biggest problem is that sss is by default in nsswitch on
> fedora/rhel>=7 due to glibc caching and problem with GNOME,
> a) sssd-client is installed by default on this platforms.
> b) sssd need't be configured by default and in most cases won't be
>     => sssd cannot run
> c) glibc developers don't want to adjust the error return code in
> glibc
> 
> As a result of this, we need to patch sssd.
> I would say we should patch sssd just in downstream and
> Stephan's patch works well. I tested it.

Ok, then let's go with Stephen's patch.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list